Agenda item

To receive the report of the Chief Planning Officer on an application to change use of domestic swimming pool to form canine hydrotherapy use (sui generis) at 81 Wakefield Road, Garforth, LS25

 

(Report attached)

The report of the Chief Planning Officer requested Members to consider an application for the change of use of a domestic swimming pool and garage to canine hydrotherapy use (sui generis) at 81 Wakefield Road, Garforth, LS25 1AR.

 

Members had attended a site visit earlier in the day during the site visit number 79 Wakefield Road was also visited. Plans and photographs were shown at the meeting along with a video showing the rear garden of 83 and its proximity and boundary to 81 Wakefield Road.

 

Members were informed of the following points:

·  The domestic pool was located within a residential garden within a building.

·  The pool had been approved in 2003.

·  The building where the pool is located backs onto Queensway.

·  Part of the garage was to be used as part reception, with a garage for the owners use. It was noted that the garage was constructed of wood.

·  The fence between 79 and 81 was to remain and a fence was to be added between 81 and 83.

·  The rear garden of 81 was to remain as domestic use with a fence between the garden and the reception.

·  There was substantial parking for both residents and customers. Customers would use the area located at the front of the property, it was noted that the applicant was considering making this area larger by removing some of the area currently used for planting. Highways Officers were of the view that the parking layout was acceptable.

·  Opening times in line with advice received from the Environmental Health Officer were proposed as Monday to Friday 08.30-17.30 and Saturday 09.00-14.00.

·  Significant insulation to be used in the hydrotherapy building. However more information was to be gained for condition 5 of the submitted report.

·  Astro turf to be used in all areas where dogs will be to provide added insulation against sound.

 

Local residents had been consulted and letters of objection and support had been received. It was noted that the concerns of both neighbours at 79 and 83 had not been alleviated and that concerns of one neighbour who works shifts had been omitted from the submitted report.

 

It was also noted that concerns had been raised by residents that the report was biased and unfair, that plans had been sent out after the report had been written and that there were issues in relation to the Environmental Health Officers comments.

 

It was noted that no officer from Environmental Health was available at the meeting.

 

Members were asked to note the following conditions set out in the submitted report:

·  Temporary permission of 12 months

·  Condition 5 to be amended slightly to include more information in relation to insulation 

·  Condition 6 to have a detailed management plan in relation to appointment system, dog owners to remain present throughout the appointment, use of appropriate drying equipment for the dogs.

 

Members were informed that there was another hydrotherapy business in Garforth however that business also offered grooming and other services. This business would only be offering canine hydrotherapy.

 

Mr Collard the neighbour of 79 Wakefield Road and Mr Tuck of 83 Wakefield Road were at the meeting and addressed the Panel.

 

Mr Collard raised the following concerns:

·  Wakefield Road is a busy main road

·  There was limited parking spaces

·  There would be reduced visibility from the drives onto the main road

·  Regular access was required for Mr Collard’s daughter

·  Reduced privacy particularly during summer months when they would want to make use of the garden.

·  Customer noise and disturbance

·  The building to be used was made of timber not brick

·  The building was closer to neighbours property then identified in the submitted report

·  When he had purchased the property two years ago this business had not been mentioned had it been he would have reconsidered buying.

 

Mr Tuck addressed the Members informing them that he was a shift worker and was of the view that the business would disturb his sleep with customers coming and going, banging of car doors and dogs barking. He said that there could be up to 15 dogs a day.

 

Mr Tuck said that he was a dog owner himself and that customers coming and going would affect his own dogs’ behaviour.

 

He explained that his family used the garden at the rear a lot and that the business would affect their privacy.

 

Members were informed that this matter had been ongoing since March and that responses were passed to local Councillors and to Planning Officers although no feedback had been received from Planning Officers.

 

Mr Slater on behalf of the applicant was present at the meeting. He apologised that his partner, the applicant was unable to attend. He said that it had not been their intention to upset anyone and that was the reason all the conditions had been agreed to.

He said that all the objections and concerns had been taken on board.

 

Mr Slater explained the proposed operation of 1-2 dogs with the owner present throughout the appointment. He said that his own dog would be in the house.

 

He had visited his neighbours and explained the business proposal.

 

Mr Slater informed the Members that this service was in high demand but was short in supply.

 

He explained that he is a dog owner himself and understands how excitable and noisy dogs can be and that was the reason for the reception area so that it can be used for cross over. He explained that the applicant had worked with dogs at a hydrotherapy pool and the dogs were usually fairly quiet.

 

The applicant could give no assurance that dogs coming for appointments would not meet during cross over. It was suggested the use of two doors one in and one out to try and avoid this problem.

 

Mr Slater informed the Panel that there was another hydrotherapy pool in Garforth but they also offered other services. It was not their intention to provide any other services and referral would be via a vet to do only what the vet suggested. He said that they had bought the property because of the pool with the hope that they would get permission for change of use. He said that having the business in this location would be convenient as his children attended the school in the area.

 

Mr Slater went on to say that the condition of a temporary time limit of 1 year had been put in place to review the impact on the neighbours.

 

Members had concerns that if the impact on the neighbours was causing distress the period of 12 months was too long and suggested that the period be reduced.

 

The Chair made the comment that the Panel had little objection to the application per say. However Members did have concerns and the Chair asked if Members wished to defer for more information. This suggestion was not taken forward.

 

Councillor Hamilton moved the motion as set out in the submitted report with Councillor Wilkinson seconding the motion.

 

Councillor Gruen sought to move an amendment in relation to the time limit of 12 months being reviewed after 6 months. The Legal Services Officer provided advice to Members in relation to a time limited condition and as a result of the advice received Councillor Gruen subsequently withdrew the proposed amendment.

 

When put to the vote the motion moved by Councillor Hamilton and Seconded by Councillor Wilkinson the motion fell.

 

Members continued to discuss the application as they were not against the proposal in principle but were of the view that further information was required to address the concerns of the neighbours.

 

Members discussed the following points:

·  More information required on insulation

·  Sufficient parking

·  Management plan for dogs meeting on the way to and from therapy

·  Toileting issues

·  Fencing between domestic garden and business

·  Noise disturbance during the summer months when windows would be open

·  Temporary time limit of 12 months

 

It was also clarified that no maladministration had taken place in relation to letters of representation.

 

It was suggested that Members may wish to defer for further information The Legal Officer provided guidance with regard to calling for a new motion.

 

At the conclusion of the discussions Councillor Wadsworth moved a motion to defer determination of the application pending further information. The motion was seconded by Councillor S McKenna. On being put to the vote, Councillor Wadsworth’s motion was passed, and it was

 

RESOLVED – That:-

a)  The determination of the application be deferred pending further information in relation to:-

1.  Detailed management plan in relation to crossover and dogs meeting

2.  Details of insulation scheme and its effectiveness to be submitted to Planning for approval

3.  Movement of vehicles

4.  Environmental Health Officers comments in relation to noise and possible disturbance to neighbours

b)  Discussions to be encouraged between applicant and neighbours and;

c)  An Environmental Health Officer to attend when the application is considered