Appeal 6002590

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, for the demolition and replacement of the existing extension and the conversion of the garage to facilitate a dog grooming and dog daycare business, at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0754/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

In the application, the proposed development is described as: “Conversion of the existing garage to be used as a home business of the householder; a rear extension on the house is to be replaced and extended to create a utility and orangery”. However, I have adopted the alternative description contained on the Council’s decision notice, as set out above, as this defines the nature of the proposed use more precisely. I note that the Council’s change to the original description does not appear to have been contested by the appellant.

The development would include both building works and a change of use. The proposed operational works would primarily involve the demolition of a small rear extension to the house, and its replacement with a new ‘orangery’, and alterations to the existing detached garage, including a new hipped roof, and the replacement of the vehicular doors with a pedestrian door and windows. Internally, the garage would be subdivided to form a series of smaller rooms, and various other internal alterations would be made within the house. The Council raises no objection to any of these physical works, and I see no reason to disagree.

With regard to the proposed use, the dog grooming and dog daycare would be carried out primarily within the garage. The appellant and the Council both suggest that this would give rise to a ‘sui generis’ use in these parts of the site. In my view however, that does not appear to be correct, because in legal terms the application site is a single planning unit, and would remain so. Consequently it seems to me that, as a matter of law, the grant of permission would result in a mixed planning use, for a mixture of residential use and dog grooming/dog daycare, across the whole site. But nevertheless, given the appellant’s clear intention to limit the commercial use to only part of the site, this is a matter that can be dealt with by means of conditions.

It is not in dispute that the dog daycare element of the proposed use would need to be licensed under the [name] (Licensing of [name]) (England) Regulations 2018. In order to obtain such a licence, the operator would have to meet recognised standards, in particular with regard to animal safety and welfare. The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF) makes it clear that the planning system should not attempt to duplicate the controls available under other regulatory regimes. In the present case therefore, any matters that are covered by the relevant Licensing requirements are not for consideration in this appeal.

In the light of the above, and all the other matters raised in the submissions before me, I find that the main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed commercial use on neighbouring occupiers, in terms of noise.

I saw on my visit that the road known as [name] is a ‘B’-class road, which forms the main spine of the village of [name], just outside [site address] . Although mainly residential, there are also a mixture of other uses, including shops, businesses and community uses, along its length. No [site address] is an attractive, early 20th-century detached house, with a more recent detached garage to one side. Adjoining that side of the site, in separate ownership, is a commercial veterinary surgery, housed in a purpose-built modern building with its own car park to the front. On the other side of the appeal property, and to the rear, are other residential dwellings.

I appreciate the concerns of the Council and neighbours with regard to the potential for noise. On a limited scale, the barking of one or two dogs is a type of noise that might be expected in any residential area, but if this were to involve larger numbers, and regular occurrences over prolonged periods, then the overall impact could become significant. In this context, I also note that Policy DM24 of the Wyre Forest Local Plan (the WFLP), adopted in April 2022, aims amongst other things to ensure that all development is integrated with its surroundings, and that residential amenities are properly protected.

In this case however, it is stated by the appellant that all dog grooming and daycare activities would take place primarily inside the converted garage building, with the daycare dogs being taken for walks away from the site, twice daily, and no part of the garden being used for exercise. It is further stated that the only part of the garden into which the cared-for dogs would have access would be a small, fenced enclosure which is proposed to be sited adjacent to the building, where dogs would be allowed out singly, for brief ‘toilet breaks’. The Council expresses some scepticism as to whether this largely indoor method of operation is realistic or suitable, but the appellant states that this aspect accords with current best practice. I am not aware of any evidence to the contrary, and in any event, this seems to me to be a matter which clearly falls within the scope of the licensing regime rather than planning. There seems no reason why the use of the rear garden and dog toilet enclosure cannot be controlled by condition, to prevent these being used for exercise. Any noise during the occasions when the latter area is being used would tend to be of short duration. Based on the evidence available, I am satisfied that, at least as far as the garden area is concerned, the proposed use could be carried on without giving rise to undue noise.

With regard to the garage building itself, it is proposed that the structure be soundproofed with acoustic insulation to the ceiling and walls. Whilst the information provided in the application is limited, further details can be required by condition. The garage is positioned between the appellant’s house and the vets’ building, and thus does not directly adjoin any other residential property. In this location, there seems no reason to doubt that an adequate level of noise attenuation could be achieved.

I accept that occasional noise from other aspects of the operation cannot be ruled out. The departure and return from dog walking would be likely to be accompanied by a certain amount of barking. The vehicle movements of clients, visitors and deliveries would contribute to a greater sense of activity than that associated with a purely residential use. But these types of noise would generally last for only a short time. And in addition, they would occur at the front of the site, adjacent to a moderately busy road and another commercial use, where a degree of background noise is already present. In a location of this nature, it would not be realistic to require any further development to be completely noise-free. In this case, the appellant has submitted a draft Noise Management Plan, and although some elements of this may require further consideration, it seems to me that such a plan, secured by condition and negotiated by agreement with the Council, would be capable of defining a set of appropriate limits and working arrangements to enable the business to operate without undue noise or disturbance. Noise impacts could also be further mitigated by setting limits on the business’s hours of operation. Subject to these conditions, I am satisfied that noise from the proposed use could be managed within acceptable levels.

I note the other points made, including the possibility of future expansion. However, any proposed changes to the terms of the agreed Noise Management Plan would remain within the control of the Council.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed use of the premises for dog grooming and daycare could be carried out without causing excessive levels of noise, and thus without any unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In this regard the development would avoid conflict with development plan policies, including Policy DM24.

WFLP Policy S17 states that the development of small businesses and live-work units will be encouraged in suitable locations. in the NPPF, paragraph 85 states that planning decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and adapt. The appeal proposal would enable the establishment of a new small enterprise which, subject to suitable controls, could be carried out without causing undue harm. These national and local policies add weight in favour.

The appeal property is locally listed, and is therefore regarded as a heritage asset. However, no-one appears to have objected to any part of the appeal proposal on grounds relating to the effects on the building or its setting. To my mind, the proposed physical works are well designed, and the final details of materials can be controlled by condition. The change to a mixed use of the site would have no effect in this regard. I am therefore satisfied that the building’s special interest and significance would be unaffected.

I have considered the conditions suggested by both parties with regard to the tests contained in NPPF paragraph 57. Those that I consider should be imposed are set out in the attached schedule. Where appropriate, I have edited and rearranged these in the interests of clarity, precision and enforceability.

A condition defining the time limit for commencement is required for compliance with the relevant legislation. A requirement for adherence to the approved plans is necessary to ensure certainty as to the details that have been approved. A condition to control the external materials is needed to ensure that the character of the existing house is properly conserved.

Conditions relating to the business element of the proposal, limiting the areas to be used and the hours of operation, and requiring noise insulation and a Noise Management Plan, are all needed for reasons which are explained elsewhere in this decision. In the case of the hours condition, I have adjusted this to accord with the hours suggested by the appellant, as these seem to me more reasonable. The condition relating to the Noise Management Plan includes provisions relating to all of the principal matters of concern, including the numbers of dogs, and the spacing of appointments; however, it is not necessary for these provisions to be over-prescriptive, and therefore some details are left to be agreed subsequently.

A condition preventing future changes of use is unnecessary, as any material change would be outside the terms of this permission, and therefore subject to planning control.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed scheme would accord with the relevant provisions of the development plan. This finding is not outweighed by any other material considerations. It follows that permission should be granted, subject to the conditions that I have imposed.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, Nos 2417-1 and 2417-3.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall match those used on the existing building. Where no existing materials of a similar nature are present on the building, details of the proposed new materials shall be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with these details.

The use of the premises for commercial dog grooming and dog daycare shall take place only within the former garage building, labelled ‘Annex’ on Plan No 2417-1, and the small fenced enclosure at the rear of that building, shown on the same plan. No dog grooming or daycare activities, and no exercising of dogs in connection with that business, shall be carried out in any other part of the property, including any other part of the rear garden.

The fenced enclosure referred to in Condition 4 above shall be used only as a dog toilet area, and not for the purposes of dogs being exercised. The use of the former garage for dog grooming and dog daycare shall not be commenced until this enclosure has been laid out and securely fenced.

The use for dog grooming and dog daycare shall not commence until the garage building has been fitted with acoustic insulation throughout, in accordance with a detailed scheme, to be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing.

The use for dog grooming and dog daycare shall take place only within the following hours, and the premises shall not be open to customers or the public outside these hours: Monday to Friday: 08.30 – 18.00 Saturdays: 09.00 – 16.00

The use for dog grooming and dog daycare shall be carried out in accordance with a detailed Noise Management Plan, to be submitted to the local planning authority and approved in writing. This Plan shall include full details of: ▪ the numbers of dogs to be handled, at any one time, and over a whole day; ▪ the system for booking appointments, and the spacing between appointment times; ▪ the numbers of staff employed at the premises, and their anticipated working patterns; ▪ the proposed parking arrangements; ▪ any arrangements for deliveries and unscheduled callers; ▪ any arrangements for the off-site collection and delivery of animals from/to their owners.