A MAN who wants to run a gun dog and grooming business from land he owns in Boxford has applied for planning permission for a second time, writes Anne Wise.
Paul Sims, who operates Simbo’s Gun Dogs and Grooming, says he has addressed concerns about his business in the second application by offering to sound-proof dog kennels and by spending £1,600 on quieter hairdryers for grooming animals at the Stone Street site.
His first application was refused by Babergh District Council in March and the council issued an enforcement order against him. The council said it had been made aware that some of the works had occurred during the process of the application being determined.
The enforcement notice, which took effect on June 4, said that, within a period of six months, the use was to cease and a mobile home removed from the land.
Mr Sim’s new plan includes a log cabin, painted black to blend in with a nearby barn, to replace the mobile home as well as the change of use from existing stables to dog kennels, with another kennel block built, and use of the ground for training, breeding and grooming dogs. He said: “I have made a second application to the council which basically addresses all the issues people have. I have put in plans for a log cabin. I am are also appealing against the enforcement order and I am now waiting to hear what happens next.”
Mr Sims said he understood residents did not like the look of the mobile home on the site, which consists of three fields, and so he had decided to change it to a cabin which would blend in with the surrounding buildings.
He said: “I have no intention of ever building on this piece of land. I got the place for my business, I need the countryside for my business and that particular piece of land meets my training needs and the access from Stone Street is brilliant for my customers.”
Mr Sims, who developed the firm from a hobby in 2009, said he hoped sound-proofing would help allay residents’ fears about noise from barking.
Councillors refused Mr Sim’s previous plan saying the proposed use was not “an essential need” in the countryside and was contrary to the local plan.