Agenda item

Planning application - 23/00318/FUL - 89 Marlborough Road, Ashford



Ashford Town




Erection of 12 walk-in style pens in rear garden of property and operation of cattery.




Approve the application subject to conditions.





Erection of 12 walk-in style pens in rear garden of property and operation of Cattery.


Additional Information:


The Planning Officer reported the following:




One late representation sent to Councillors has been forwarded onto officers. Most of the issues raised are already covered in the Committee report.  The additional issue is:


The A308 is close to the site and the noise generated by its proximity will cause stress to the cats and potentially cause them to be noisy.  Environmental Health has been consulted on the proposal with regards to noise impact and has raised no objection.



A response has been received from the Environment Agency raising no objection subject to conditions and an informative already attached to the report. 


Amended Plans


Plans have also been received showing all elevations and include minor changes to the elevations including clarification of window positions and changes to the rear elevation. 


Condition 2 is therefore to be amended as follows:   


The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 


Location plan, ex elev 3, pro elev 5, ex PL2, pro PL4 rec’d 13.03.2023.


Amended plans pro Elv 5, pro Elv5B, pro PL4, pro PL4B rec’d  24.05.2023.


Updates to report


New paragraph in section 7 of the report


Financial Considerations


Under S155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, Local Planning Authorities are now required to ensure that potential financial benefits of certain development proposals are made public when a Local Planning Authority is considering whether or not to grant planning permission for planning applications which are being determined by the Council’s Planning Committee.  A financial benefit must be recorded regardless of whether it is material to the Local Planning Authority’s decision on a planning application, but planning officers are required to indicate their opinion as to whether the benefit is material to the application or not. In consideration of S155 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016.  The proposal is not CIL liable.  It would be liable to pay business rates, but this is not a material planning consideration in the determination of this proposal.

River Ash

In several parts of the report, reference is made to the River Ash being located at the rear of the site. Whilst the River Ash is close to the site to the south, it is an open drain at the rear of the site which leads to the River Ash.  Consequently, corrections are to be made to the executive summary (paragraph 1) and paragraphs 3.1, 3.3 and 7.1, plus the informative.


Public Speaking:

In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Denise Maye spoke against the proposed development raising the following key points:


-Six letters of objection had already been submitted

-The introduction of a cattery to a fully residential area was not appropriate

-There was concern for additional traffic and parking

-Cattery clients would have little regard for parking on a T-junction

-Accidents would be heightened on the junction

-Adjoining neighbours would be unable to enjoy their outside space due to noise and odour from cats

-This application had caused stress for neighbours

-Running a business which caused traffic, noise, waste, and odour was not in keeping with the local area

-Foxes and rats were already rife in this street, and the cattery would encourage more of the same


In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Nicola Aldridge spoke for the proposed development raising the following key points:


-The Cattery exterior would be made from sustainably sourced timber

-The exterior would blend in well with the garden and surroundings

-One way glass or film would be used so cats will not be seen from outside of the building

-Marlborough Road had plenty of parking available

-Cats were clean and would not smell

-Each pen would be cleaned daily with regular checks throughout the day to monitor the cats and remove any waste.

-Odour reducing cat litter would be used

-Cat waste would be bagged and stored in a container ready for collection by a specialist company.

-The cattery was a completely enclosed building so transfer of any sound would be greatly reduced.

-Consultation with other Cattery manufacturers confirmed neighbours had never made complaints about noise or smell

-A neighbouring Cattery recently had their permanent application status confirmed


In accordance with the Council’s procedure for speaking at meetings, Councillor Rybinski spoke as Ward Councillor against the proposed development raising the following key points:


-There would be noise pollution with up to 24 cats

-The garden backs onto the River Ash which would affect wildlife due to noise

-Smell pollution in the heat would hinder neighbours from enjoying garden space

-This was an overdevelopment in a small garden space

-This was an eyesore for neighbours

-The design of the cattery building would not have a positive impact and went against policy EN1

-There was restricted car access on the narrow junction

-There was already issues with blocked driveways and traffic accidents

-The traffic examination was very weak

-The officer recommendations cannot be monitored

-This would be a strain on the Planning Department due to enforcement purposes

-There was six oppositions to this application

-This business was not right for the area and would ruin the street scene

-A similar cattery was turned down in Derbyshire due to detrimental impact on neighbours



During the debate the following key issues were raised:


-Neighbours would be unable to enjoy their garden space

-A neighbouring cattery had not caused any issues in regard to odour, noise or traffic

-There was no area to pull in to park at the front of the property

-There was a large presence of dogs on this road which would case stress for the cats

-This development would attract foxes at night-time

-This business was not right for a residential area

-There would be noise pollution

-Concern was raised about poor insulation of the pens

-Granting permission for less than two years may be a compromise


Councillor Clarke joined the meeting late and missed part of the debate for this item. He was therefore unable to vote.


The Committee voted on the application as follows:


For: 7

Against: 6

Abstain: 2


Decision: The recommendation to approve was agreed and the application was approved subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report.


Supporting documents: