The notice required the appellant to remove a kennel, store and decking and reinstate the land as a garden associated with a house. The appellant accepted that dogs were kept on the land for his security business. However, he asserted that this had not triggered a material change in use. The council pointed to the substantial level of complaints made and records kept by local residents over dogs barking, sometimes late at night.
The inspector decided that bringing the dogs onto the site for training purposes and occasional keeping of animals being trained had caused substantial disturbance for local residents. He decided that the site was in mixed use as a dwellinghouse and a commercial operation associated with security dog training when the notice was served. On that basis, he ruled that the decking, kennel and store were not permitted development.
DCS Number 100-050-361
Inspector Graham Dudley; Inquiry.