A DOG-WALKING and daycare centre in St Ouen could be forced to close at the end of this year after a member of the public appealed against the approval of planning permission.
In a social-media post, Kumiko Orlandini, the owner of Koko’s Canines in Rue des Hougues, has asked Islanders for their help and support, saying that she was ‘beyond devastated’ by the move and that it was ‘an incredibly stressful and challenging time’.
The plans for the dog shelter were granted in June, despite having been recommended for refusal by the Planning Department because officers said that its location, in a protected coastal area, was ‘unsustainable’.
A neighbour who lives near the field also criticised the application and questioned why the field could not be kept as agricultural land.
The majority of the Planning Committee decided that the dog shelter would not cause ‘irreversible harm’ to the existing agricultural land at La Robeline, and that it was beneficial to the community.
Ms Orlandini applied for planning permission after she had started operating the business. However, a member of the public has now appealed against the decision to grant her permission to use the site and Ms Orlandini said she has been told that she must cease trading, pending the outcome of the appeal in December.
She said: ‘I am beyond devastated and have provided the highest standards of care to my clients’ dogs. I have four members of staff, who rely on my business for income, and 50 dogs weekly who use our day care.
‘The impact of this is huge, not just on me but on my staff and clients too.’
She added: ‘I understand the need for planning permissions and an appeals process, but I’m struggling to understand how a small but established business, which had previously been given the green light, must now cease trading and jeopardise the future of the business and the wellbeing and financial stability of the people who work there.
‘Small-business owners and young people are already up against it when trying to further themselves and their businesses in Jersey.’
The Islander has lodged the appeal on the grounds that the business fails to meet regulations and planning policies, that no consultation with the agricultural sector was undertaken and that there is ‘unreasonable noise pollution to neighbours’ and ‘unreasonable harm to traffic flow’. The appellant ‘strongly contested’ that noise levels were not excessive, writing that ‘there is a significant noise of dogs barking and shouting by team members which is heard in the surrounding area and properties’.
They further expressed concern that this would worsen ‘should the business grow’.
Two Islanders have already submitted comments in support of the business.
