News
Updated Jan 8, 2019

Log in →

Retirement village "no-pets policy" upheld to protect SSSI

The Planning Inspectorate upheld a unilateral undertaking banning elderly residents from keeping pets as a part of the approval of the 50-home retirement village near Rochester, to protect the nearby site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).

The approved village comprises of a mix of 2/3 storey apartments and single storey bungalows with ancillary meeting room, gymnasium, office, parking and garaging in the southern edge of Cliffe Woods and beyond, making the development subject to countryside policy terms.

Among issues such as loss of agricultural land, drainage issues and crime prevention, Natural England and other stakeholders raised concerns that the scheme could lead to a localised increase in cat population which could adversely affect the ecosystem in the nearby Chattenden Woods and Lodge Hill SSSIs. Natural England's advice to the Planning Inspectorate was to implement a "no pets policy" which would ban future residents from keeping pets, with the exception of caged pets such as birds or fish.

The local council argued that such a ban could harm the well-being of the residents by increasing the feelings of social isolation, which was dismissed by the inspector David Troy, where he ruled that any harm caused by such ban would be offset by the health benefits of the on-site club house and gymnasium, as well as stating that the site is sustainably located, with a couple of general stores, a post office, doctor's surgery, pharmacy and a church hall within a walking distance from the village.

In the conclusion, Mr Troy found that the provision of the new retirement homes carried decisive weight in light of the demand for homes for elderly people in the area, the appeal is therefore allowed.

It was reported that the Cliffe and Cliffe Woods Parish Council are disappointed with the decision, but there are still details of the development to be agreed - it is unlikely that any construction could start until late 2019 - if detailed permission is granted.

Neither the appeal or the Planning Inspectorate's decision mentioned the keeping of dogs.

For more information, see the:


View all stories