As you may be aware, a planning application has been lodged to build a house in the woods beside the GRF rescue kennels. If it is successful it may set a precedent and open the floodgates to many more houses. This would most likely mean that there would be noise ASBO complaints being made against our dogs barking. Ultimately GRF could be closed down. This of course would be a disaster for the greyhounds.

To view the application click here and enter 16/01257/FLL, then click on Search.

When a council considers a planning application they will only be interested in material facts. You can find guidance on material facts here.

What they will not take into account is the effect that building this house will have on GRF, because this is not a material fact. Celia has therefore asked that if you do wish to object to the planning application please DO NOT mention the work of GRF or the impact this house may have on GRF as it is completely irrelevant to the planning application. It is therefore likely that comments made regarding GRF will be ignored by the planning department.

Living in the North of Scotland, I was not aware of this application. But it's certainly most worrying. However, I can't help wondering about the legalities of this. Surely if somebody chooses to build a house in an area where there is a very well-known and long-standing facility, then they have no right to complain if they then decide they do not like the noise?

I am in a similar position here. I chose to live in an area located between two very noisy RAF bases (one, Kinloss, is now an Army base). The noise from low-flying aircraft is sometime horrendous, especially now we have the new Typhoon aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth in addition to the Tornados. But they were there first, and it was my choice. People do complain up here, but they don't have a leg to stand on - especially those who are now building houses in the area in full knowledge of the situation.

Let's hope for a positive outcome for GRF anyway.

Best, Jo

If I can come in here.
Steve is totally and utterly correct. A tidal wave of GRF support may cause the Council to eliminate them all. The few objections we have are fine and good and have made our case out well but it would be better now in your objections not to mention the owner of the ground by name nor to indicate your allegiance to GRF. We should now just stick to the planning points.
I thank the people who have posted in our defence.
Jimmy.

Hi Guys.
If you have difficulty in deciding what are relevant planning points look at my letter of objection which includes most of them.
Just randomly select a few points, use your own words and hopefully most will be covered. Remember do not mention Hutt by name.
Celia.

Good to see that P&K Council Planning Dept have seen sense and refused this application. Well done to everybody that sent in their objections, this particular threat to the long term future of GRF has been headed off for now. But we will need to remain vigilant as no doubt some of these local landowners will continue to look for ways to cash in on their property assets which could also be detrimental to GRF.