The grooming parlour had been used for between five and seven appointments a day for two years. It was reached via a passage under the first floor of the terrace which provided access to the front door of the appeal property and to a neighbour's. Separate doors led off the passage to the respective back gardens.
As customers did not stay during grooming, any one customer could make four trips past the neighbour's front door. The inspector noted that dogs might sometimes be brought or collected by more than one person. However, he did not consider that the level of coming and going inevitably gave rise to an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance.
In reaching this conclusion, he took into account the scale, timing and operation of the business. The distance down the passage was short and so was that from the gate to the grooming building, he found. In any event, he reasoned that a certain amount of noise from neighbours could be expected in a densely developed residential area.
DCS Number 100-069-310
Inspector Christopher Bowden; Hearing