Dog breeding

Dog breeding business that illegally runs away from house in Derbyshire village is at risk of shutting down

A council is trying to shut down a dog breeding business that is illegally run from a house in a Derbyshire village.

Amber Valley Borough Council has taken enforcement action to stop dog breeding in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn.

He says that even though the owners have a breeding license that allows them to have 27 dogs living on the property at any one time, they are not allowed to run a business from home.

The council considers the noise from the business to be unacceptable in a residential area.

In addition, the district council said that a “substantial redevelopment” had taken place in the house without a building permit.

This includes a large kennel and dog enclosure complex at the rear of the house, overlooking Station Close, and an additional outbuilding at the front of the property to use as an aviary housing what the council describes as “a significant number of birds ”.

Julie Braddock and Wayne Elliott own the property in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn, and currently run the Rockerdar Canine and JB Pet Supplies businesses from home.

Rockerdar Canine explains on their website that they are a small, licensed, family-owned breeding business specializing in Border Collies and Jack Russell Terriers.

He says the company has a range of skills in dog behavior, breeding and dog body language.

The website also states that it operates from the same property in Brickyard Lane.



The property in Brickyard Lane, Kilburn, which is home to a dog breeding business

He indicates that there are three male breeding dogs and six female breeding dogs.

The site states that Jack Russell puppies cost between £ 850 and £ 1,250 to buy from the company and that Border Collie puppies cost £ 950 if not registered with the Kennel Club and £ 1,250 if they are. recorded.

Another list of websites shows that JB Pet Supplies is also operating from the same building, including under the former name of Julie Braddock JB Pet Supplies.

Amber Valley Borough Council served execution notice on Ms Braddock and Mr Elliott in June and now the couple have filed an appeal which will be dealt with by government planning inspectors.

The borough council says the large rear extension is not an authorized development (authorized without planning permission) as it is attached to the main house and extends beyond the wall of the original property of more than four meters.

Everything about politics in Derbyshire

He says the extension was also not built for residential use and therefore “does not comply with the regulations”.

The council says that the aviary housed in the outbuilding before “increases the commercial enterprises of the property”.

He says: “A significant number of animals reside on the property including a number of breeding dogs and young females, the property has a dog breeding license which allows up to 27 dogs to reside. on the property at all times.

“The aviary building is a large building at the front of the property which contains a significant number of birds.

“The local plan indicates that permission will not be granted to development which results in a significant increase in noise pollution levels.”

He quotes another council policy according to which “business development proposals require developments compatible with their environment”.



The council said the large extension should be removed

The house in Brickyard Lane is surrounded by houses.

The borough council specifies: “Dog breeding activities and animal care in the newly built aviary are facilities considered incompatible with their environment and are likely to significantly increase noise levels.

“The developments are not acceptable due to the close relationship with neighboring properties; the number of dogs and other animals on the property and the increased comings and goings associated with commercial activities.

“Intensified use is therefore considered to have a negative impact on the living conditions of neighboring properties and the residential amenity of the wider area. “

The authority states that the rear extension is “particularly important” and “inappropriate” and “highly visible” to residents at the rear of the site at Station Close.

He says the planning conditions could not overcome his objections to development.

The execution notice he served required owners to do the following:

  • Stop using the land as a commercial dog breeding and animal sale business
  • Do not breed more than three litters of dogs in the course of a calendar year or part of the lot for the first calendar year
  • Remove the rear extension
  • Remove dependency

In response, the owners appealed on the following grounds:



The house has signs that say “Be careful, dogs run free”

  • The building permit must be granted for what is alleged in the notice
  • The control violation alleged in the formal notice did not in fact occur
  • By the time the notice of execution was issued, it was too late to take enforcement action against the matters set out in the notice.
  • The steps required to comply with the notice requirements are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections

Residents can write comments as part of the appeal process.

These can be submitted online at acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk citing appeal references APP / M1005 / C / 19/3234190 and APP / M1005 / C / 19/3234191.

Letters citing call references can also be sent to: Nicholas Hamilton, The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3G, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

The deadline for submission is Monday, December 30.


Source link