Dog grooming parlour at 27 Duffryn Crescent, Bryncae, Pontyclun
Summary of planning committee decision
Decided by Rhondda Planning and Development Committee on 21 May 2026.
What was proposed
The application sought to change a rear garden outbuilding into a part-time, appointment-only dog grooming business with one client at a time.
“The applicant has stated their intention for the business to operate out of the existing garden outbuilding located within the rear curtilage of the property. The applicant has advised that they would be the sole employee, working from their own home on a part time basis, and would see one client at a time on an appointment-only basis. Customer access will be via the existing side gate leading from the front of the property to the rear garden.”
Officer report
The site
The property is a two-storey semi-detached home in a residential area, with a modest rear garden and small outbuilding.
“The application property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located in a residential area of Llanharan.”
“The property is set back from the public highway by a front driveway and walled garden lawn. The dwelling enjoys a modest tiered garden to the rear enclosed by neighbouring properties to the front and sides, with a small garden outbuilding.”
Officer report
Planning history
There were no recent or relevant planning applications recorded for the site.
“There are no recent or relevant applications on record with this site.”
Officer report
Officers’ recommendation
Approval was recommended because the limited business use was considered unlikely to harm the area, neighbours, highway safety or ecological interest, subject to conditions.
“RECOMMENDATION: GRANT SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS BELOW:”
“REASONS: The proposal represents an acceptable small-scale business use within a residential property that would not give rise to any material harm to the character and appearance of the area, neighbouring amenity, highway safety, or ecological interest.”
Officer report
Consultation responses
Highways raised no objection, while ecology and public health supported the proposal subject to conditions for biodiversity and customer limits.
“No objection raised, no conditions recommended.”
“No objection raised subject to a condition for customer limitations.”
Officer report
Residents’ concerns
Four objections raised concerns about parking, pedestrian safety, noise, waste, privacy, pets, the outbuilding’s status and alleged business operation before permission.
“Four letters of objection have been received raising the following issues:”
“Concerns over street parking and the potential blocking of private driveways. • Highway safety concerns relating to pedestrian crossings. • Noise disruption to neighbours, particularly regarding dog barking, grooming equipment, and street traffic. • Build-up of commercial waste from the business. • Concerns over neighbouring privacy and neighbour’s rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their own property. • Disturbance to neighbouring pets.”
Officer report
How impacts were assessed
The small scale, one-to-one appointments, customer parking space and maximum of four dogs daily were considered unlikely to cause unacceptable disturbance or highway problems.
“With regard to noise and disturbance, it is thought that the size of the business would render it unlikely to disturb residential amenity to any unacceptable degree. However, it is acknowledged that multiple objectors cited noise and disturbance as a particular concern.”
“The Council’s Highways and Transportation section was also made aware of the received public objections, given that highway safety and parking concerns were prevalent amongst objectors. The Highways and Transportation section noted concerns that the proposal would generate additional parking demand and traffic but determined that, considering the part-time, one-on-one appointment basis of the business, the trip generation would be minimal.”
Officer report
Committee decision
The committee resolved to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation.
“The Head of Major Development and Investment outlined the contents of two ‘late letters’ received from the applicant and an objector.”
“The Head of Planning presented the application to Committee and following consideration it was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the recommendation of the Director, Housing and Regeneration.”
Minutes
Main conditions
The permission limits visits to four dogs daily, one dog at a time, restricts the use to the occupier, requires a bird box and sets operating hours.
“Prior to the use hereby approved being brought into beneficial use, a bird nesting box shall be installed on the premises and maintained in good order and retained for the lifetime of the development thereafter.”
“No more than four visiting dogs shall be groomed at the premises per day, with no more than one dog at the parlour at any one time. Dogs associated with the business shall not be kept in the rear garden area, except for temporary access, egress, and toileting.”
Officer report
Sources
- Rhondda Planning and Development Committee minutes, 21 May 2026
- Agenda and papers (council website)
Source: Plota analysis of Rhondda's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.
Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API
The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.
See the API →At the meeting
- Council
- Rhondda
- Date
- Thursday 21 May 2026
- Recommendation
- Officers recommended approval
- Committee decided
- Approved
- Minutes
- The council's minutes
- Meeting
- Agenda and papers (council website)
- Application
- View application →
- All decisions
- Rhondda committee decisions →
This committee's year
79 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 3 against officer advice.
Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.