Major development approved despite noise issues in kennels
Experts this week advised that living 20 meters from up to 26 dogs in wooden kennels wouldn’t be too noisy.
Plans to build a major development near a kennel business were approved by advisers based on advice given to them at a planning meeting on Tuesday, August 24.
But advisers have sympathized with the owner of a kennel business who fears future residents of the development may complain about the noise.
Almond Valley Limited has submitted plans to the Perth and Kinross Council to build 340 homes on land adjacent to Huntingtowerfield and Ruthvenfield.
Maggie and Stuart McAdam have run the neighboring Adie Kennels and Cattery in Ruthvenfield for 16 years.
The company was established in the 1960s, but Mr. McAdam now fears for its future.
He said Adie Kennels and Cattery would move from a secluded position 300 yards from the nearest occupied house within 20 yards of that development.
The plans include 340 housing units, three shops, a sports exchange pavilion and associated infrastructure and works.
Mr McAdam told the Perth and Kinross Council’s Planning and Development Management Committee: “It is well known that most noise complaints involve dogs.
“Our business is Perth and Kinross Council licensed for 26 dogs and 30 cats housed in traditional wooden kennels.
“So as you can imagine it can get really loud at times and the last thing we want is for people to complain that it’s too loud with all that that would entail.”
He said: âPersonally, I think there is a fundamental flaw in the design.
âLet’s face it here – 26 dogs and you have houses 20 yards away.
“People can stick their heads in the sand as much as they want, but there is a major noise problem.”
A similar objection was submitted by the nearby Huntingtower Hotel.
In an objection sent by email, General Manager Diane Valentine wrote: âWe are a large banqueting company and as a business rely on the income we make from receptions and weddings held primarily on weekends. , most weekends.
âThere is a level of noise associated with these events – which is currently not a problem – but can become so if there are a number of houses back to back where the reception hall is located. “
A planning condition called for another noise impact assessment to be performed to assess the noise of the Huntingtower Hotel.
Strathtay’s Conservative adviser Ian James asked plaintiff’s agent Alastair Wood of Savills if he would do the same for Adie Kennels and Cattery.
Mr. Wood said the claimant was happy to do so.
SNP advisor Richard Watters asked officers if they could add a planning condition requiring the developer to include noise mitigation measures for any noise from the kennels.
An environmental health official said no mitigation measures were needed and that there would be “no effect of noise in the kennels on the proposed new properties.”
A planning officer confirmed that the noise impact assessment – submitted by the applicant – was adequate and the officers were satisfied that no mitigation measures were required.
PKC’s legal representative said it would not be competent for advisers to impose a condition for noise mitigation measures when officers were satisfied with the noise impact assessment.
Liberal Democrat Councilor Willie Wilson found it hard to believe that 26 dogs wouldn’t be a noise problem.
He said: “You are bound to hear them – given that they are in open kennels – in neighboring houses only 20 meters away.
“How the expert could come to a different conclusion is beyond my comprehension.”
Conservative Councilor Crawford Reid said: “If I bought a house and it was 20 yards from the kennels, I would want my money back.”
Conservative adviser Callum Purves said: “Surely there has to be a way, if we disagree with an assessment – even without being able to provide a counter-assessment – to use it to justify denying an application.”
Conservative adviser David Illingworth offered to approve the request and said: âI share everyone else’s concerns about Adie Kennels noise, but I don’t think we have a chance to turn down this proposal.
“I would suggest that it is in the developer’s best interests if they want to sell these properties to put in place even unconditional mitigation features.”
SNP adviser Tom Gray backed him up and said: âThe dog problem is a real problem, but we have been given advice and we should accept that advice.
âIf we didn’t take this advice, it would fall into our hands if anything went wrong. It doesn’t have to happen.
“We received advice and made a decision based on that advice.”
He added: “Those who offered this advice would take the responsibility and I am happy.”
There were no amendments but councilors expressed their dissatisfaction.
Conservative adviser Michael Barnacle said: “Why do we have a development oversight committee when we are not supposed to be able to legally challenge the findings of a report, is that what I hear?”
“It got a lot harder.”
Cllr Purves found this “very frustrating”.
He said: “There have been many examples in recent years where the knowledge of the local community has been fair rather than expert assessments.”
SNP adviser Richard Watters was worried about the future of Mr McAdam’s business.
He said: “Future residents will have the right to comment when licenses are issued for the kennels.”
Manager Bob Brawn echoed the concerns of others and said he hoped the developer would contact Mr. McAdam and “agree to a mutual solution to the problem.”