The inspector considered the green belt aspects of the proposal solely against the NPPF as the local plan policy was out of date. The appellant considered the proposal would form an exception under bullet point six of the NPPF as it affected previously developed land. But the inspector disagreed, citing the fact that the existing shed was in agricultural use for housing chickens meant that it did not fall within the PDL definition in the NPPF.
Turning to the issue of noise disturbance from the proposal, the inspector considered the accompanying noise assessment, which stated there would be no adverse effects for neighbouring occupiers. But she felt it was difficult to be categoric on the issue as there was no recognised methodology for assessing dog boarding kennels. Indeed, the council argued that the noise assessment was flawed and noise levels would exceed World Health Organisation guidelines for community noise. The inspector concluded the noise of 30 barking dogs would be quite different from the current tranquil environment existing and would almost certainly adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring properties some 114 metres away.
Neither the personal circumstances of the applicant needing to work from home nor any economic benefits arising from the scheme were considered to constitute special circumstances justifying the development in the green belt.
Inspector: Elizabeth Pleasant; Written representations
