PLANS to turn dilapidated farmland near Faifley into a dog day care centre have been refused by council bosses.

The Post previously reported that proposals for change of use for business purposes of Cochno Town Farm were submitted by Victoria Paterson, of the farm, to East Dunbartonshire Council (EDC) on December 22.

Despite the land, which sits on the outskirts of Faifley, having a Clydebank address and postcode, it falls within the boundaries of EDC.

In an updated report published by the local authority on February 23, it was recommended that planning permission for the site be refused.

The document goes on to state that the reason for refusal is due to the proposed plans being contrary to several of EDC’s local development plan policies.

These include:

Policy one – East Dunbartonshire Development Strategy: The site is in greenbelt where there is a presumption against development.

The proposal for a range of suis generis uses which are not exceptions for the development of land in the greenbelt.

Policy ten – Design and Placemaking: The proposed change of use is close to neighbouring dwellings so is likely to result in a significant adverse impact upon the amenity of local residents from the noise and disturbance of barking dogs.

The dogs are likely to make noise during both the day, mainly weekdays, and through the night and weekends for the kennels.

The site is a former quarry and landfill site so is potentially contaminated land, however, no site-specific surveys have been carried out to be taken account in the principle and design of the development.

Policy 11 - Transport: The development is in a location that is likely to generate a high level of new vehicle movements.

Policy 14 - Network of Centres and Retailing: The high footfall uses of a pet grooming salon and fitness studio should be located in a town or local centre.

Plans for the dog daycare centre had proposed transforming the current site into a shop, kennels/animal boarding, grooming facility, and a ‘dog-run’ field.

The report states that there were 24 letters of objection submitted in relation to the application.

These came from concerned local residents, Provost Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire Council), and Knowes Housing Association – which houses tenants in nearby Whitehill Crescent.

Provost McAllister told the Post he is delighted with the outcome as the plans could have “affected over 200 residents and families” living close to the site.

He said: “I am absolutely delighted with this decision, as are the local residents of Faifley who were opposed to this proposal.

“The applicant does of course have a right to appeal East Dunbartonshire Council’s decision, however, I am sure my constituents, the local residents of Faifley, will be very relieved to hear that planning permission was not granted.

“Had it been, this would have affected over 200 residents and families living in close proximity to this site with the potential for noise pollution.

“I understand that the local housing association, Knowes Housing, are equally delighted and relieved with the decision.

“Erica Davidson at Knowes Housing, is aware of the decision, and I have thanked Knowes Housing for the support they offered to their residents of Faifley who were also very concerned.

“It simply wasn’t a suitable location for this activity, it being too close to a built-up residential area, and I am pleased that the planning officials agreed with our objections.”

Linda McCready, who lives close to the site in Faifley, added: “We are so pleased that it’s been withdrawn but there is time to appeal. If it is appealed we will be submitting our objections again.

“We’re just waiting to see what’s going to happen in three months' time. I had it in my head to phone up East Dunbartonshire Council planning committee to ask them if they wanted to come out because it’s not going to affect anyone on that side except for a few houses.

“I just want to know if the planning committee realise how many people are going to be affected on this side [West Dunbartonshire].

“Would they want to have it on their front door?”

It is understood that the applicant will have three months to appeal the decision.