Greenacre Farm Boarding Kennels and Cattery Ltd v Huntingdonshire District Council

1. This is an appeal against two decisions of Huntingdonshire District Council (“the Respondent”) to refuse the Appellant’s two applications for a licence to provide boarding in kennels for dogs and to provide boarding for cats. The first decision to refuse the Appellant’s application to renew their licence was on 29 th January 2025. On 11 th June 2025, the Respondent refused the Appellant’s second application for a new licence, having refused that earlier application for a renewal of the licence.

2. The appeals are brought under section 24(1)(a) of The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which came into force on 1 st October 2018. Background and Chronology The first application

3. The Respondent received the Appellant’s first application, which was for the renewal of a licence to carry out these licensable activities on 3 rd December 2024. That application was signed and dated by Linda Hodges, the owner of Greenacre Farm Boarding Kennels and Cattery Limited, on 24 th November 2024. Although the application required the person completing the form to state the proposed maximum number of dogs that could be accommodated in kennels at any one time, the application simply stated, “No change”. The application form was silent in respect of any proposed boarding for cats.

4. The previous inspection had been carried out by Sarah Mardon, an Animal Licensing Inspector, on 1 st November 2022, and the inspection report scored the premises as being ‘Low Risk’ in respect of both the kennels and the cattery. This assessment was carried out by reference to a Risk Scoring Table, with a score below 17 indicating a ‘Low Risk’, and a score of 18 or more indicating a ‘Higher Risk’. Both the kennels and the cattery received scores of 14, and a licence was subsequently granted, permitting the Appellant to provide boarding for both dogs and cats. The inspection report does not detail the number of dogs which are, or could be, accommodated in kennels at any one time, nor does it provide any specific numbers for cats.

5. Prior to that date, an inspection had been carried out by the same Animal Licensing Inspector on 6 th November 2018. The overall conclusion reached was that both the kennels and the cattery had been assessed as being ‘Low Risk’, based upon the risk scoring table used at the time (both the kennels and the cattery received risk scores of 15), and the inspection outcome is marked as being ‘Higher Standards’ in each instance. The scoring matrix used to determine what length of licence to be granted was ticked in the ‘Higher Standards / Low Risk’ category, being graded at ‘5 stars’ out of 5, and the suggested length of licence to be granted was ticked as being the maximum of three years. However, the inspection report was again silent as to the number of dogs and cats which were being, or could be, accommodated in the kennels or cattery at any one time. What is apparent, however, is that both of these previous inspections had assessed the premises as being suitable to provide boarding in kennels for dogs and boarding for cats.

6. Moving to the application of 24 th November 2024, an inspection of the premises was carried out by an Animal Licensing Inspector, William Dell’Orefice (“the Inspector”), on 20 th January 2025. The owners of the premises were out of the country at the time of the inspection, but their daughter, Amanda Tinsley, the Kennels Manager, was present. The Inspector’s report states that the number of units for dogs on site was 21, and the number of units for cats was said to be 7.

7. Having carried out that inspection, he refused the application for the renewal of a licence, concluding in his letter to the Appellant, dated 29 th January 2025, that “Given the level of conditions found to be not adhered to, the lack of suitable policies, the layout of the kennels and cattery, the temperature in both the kennel and cattery units, as well as the overall cleanliness of the premises [was such that] there is a direct compromise of animal welfare, and as such, the grant of a licence would not be appropriate .” . Those conclusions were based upon his inspection report and accompanying his letter to the Appellant were the inspection summary reports which he stated, “details each condition that has not been met, inspector comments and the actions required to adhere to the standards required.” .

8. In assessing both the kennels and the cattery as presenting a ‘Higher Risk’, the Animal Licencing Inspector utilised the Respondent’s Risk Scoring Table. As was the case with the earlier inspections of 6 th November 2018 and 1 st November 2022, a score of 17 or below indicates a low risk, and a score of 18 or more indicates a higher risk. On this occasion, however, the Appellant was assessed as having a score of 27, which is, of course, well into the ‘Higher Risk’ category. The second application

9. Following that refusal on 29 th January 2025, the Appellant submitted a further application for a new licence, which was again signed by Linda Hodges and was dated 15 th May 2025. Although the application appears to have been stamped as being received by the Respondent on 14 th May 2025, this had no bearing on the application itself and is considered to have been no more than a clerical error by one of the parties.

10. Section E of the application form asks the person completing it to tick which licensable activities are being applied for. Ticks appear against ‘Providing boarding in kennels for dogs’ and ‘Providing boarding for cats’. Pages 6 and 7 are missing from that completed application form, and consequently no information is available which deals with the provision of boarding for cats. However, under ‘Section J – Providing Boarding for Dogs in Kennels’, the proposed maximum number of dogs that can be accommodated at any one time is said to be thirty, with nineteen kennels said to be available for accommodation.

11. An inspection was carried out by the same Animal Welfare Inspector, William Dell’Orefice, on 30 th May 2025. His assessment of the kennels by reference to the Risk Scoring Table provided a score of 27 for the kennels and 27 for the cattery. This was again well into the ‘Higher Risk’ category, and on 11 th June 2025 the Inspector wrote to the Appellant to inform them that this application was being refused. Brief reasons were provided in that letter as follows: “Whilst you have made significant improvement to the conditions that were previously not adhered to, the kennel and cattery units are still not suitable for housing animals. In the kennel units there is still no defined sleeping area, and the attempt at creating one does not provide sufficient space to meet the minimum conditions. During the inspection you were housing two greyhounds in a single kennel unit, dogs which you stated were your friend’s pets. Using this kennel as an example, it was shown to you that the space required for each dog could not possibly be provided given the existing layout and structure of the units. The internal kennel units, in the north side, are of such a small size that it will take substantial work to alter these to meet the minimum size requirements. I have considered your willingness to make physical alterations to bring the units into suitable conditions. However, until these alterations are made there is a direct compromise of animal welfare, and it remains the position of the licensing authority that the grant of a licence is not appropriate. Given the overall level of work required and the site work needed to the concrete flooring, it is not suitable for animals to be house in this environment during this time as it would likely cause distress to the animals. In the cattery units there is also no defined sleeping areas as required. The units need considerable work to make this suitable, by either creating a walk in style unit or a penthouse style unit. Particular attention must also be given to the heat source, as each unit’s sole source of heat is a single skin radiator that it outside of the units themselves.”

12. The inspection summary reports were included with that letter, setting out which conditions had not been met, the inspector’s comments, and the remedial action necessary to gain compliance with the required standards. The Legal Framework

13. Section 13(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (“ the Act ”) provides that “No person shall carry on an activity to which this subsection applies except under the authority of a licence for the purposes of this section.” . Sections 13(2) and 13(7) stipulate that the appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision about licences for the purposes of section 13 of the Act .

14. The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Regulations) 2018 (“the Regulations”) provide by Regulation 3(2) that a local authority is the licensing authority for any licensable activity carried on on premises in its area. In this instance the relevant local authority is Huntingdonshire District Council.

15. Schedule 1 of the Regulations lists the relevant licensable activities, which includes under paragraph 4 Schedule 1, that providing boarding in kennels for dogs or boarding for cats are licensable activities, where providing accommodation for other people’s cats or dogs is a purpose of the business.

16. Regulation 4 sets out the conditions for granting or renewing a licence. This provides as follows: 4 – conditions of grant or renewal of a licence (1) This regulation applies where – (a) A local authority has received from an operator an application in writing for the grant or renewal of a licence to carry on a licensable activity on premises in the local authority’s area, and (b) The application gives such information as the local authority has required. (2) The local authority must – (a) Appoint one of more suitably qualified inspectors to inspect any premises on which the licensable activity or any part of it is being or is to be carried on, and (b) Following that inspection, grant a licence to the operator, or renew the operator’s licence, in accordance with the application if it is satisfied that – (i) The licence conditions will be met, (ii) Any appropriate fee has been paid in accordance with regulation 13, and (iii) The grant or renewal is appropriate having taken into account the report submitted to it in accordance with regulation 10. (3) A local authority must attach to each licence granted or renewed – (a) The general conditions, and (b) The relevant specific conditions. … (7) In considering whether the licence conditions will be met, a local authority must take account of the applicant’s conduct as the operator of the licensable activity to which the application for the grant or renewal relates, whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to be the operator of that activity and any other relevant circumstances. (8) A local authority must not grant a licence to an operator, or renew an operator’s licence, in any circumstances other than those described in these Regulations. (9) All licences granted or renewed in relation to any of the licensable activities are subject to the licence conditions.

17. Regulation 10 requires an inspector to provide a report to the local authority, which “must (a) contain information about the operator, any relevant premises, any relevant records, the condition of any animals and any other relevant matter, and (b) state whether or not the inspector considers that the licence conditions will be met.”

18. It is an offence under section 13(6) of the Act if a person carries out a licensable activity without a licence.

19. Schedule 4 to the Regulations sets out specific conditions which apply to persons providing boarding for cats or dogs. In respect of dogs, subsection 7 of Schedule 4 stipulates the following conditions in relation to a suitable environment: 7(1) Dogs within the premises must be prevented from coming into contact with other animals from outside the premises. (2) in each kennel unit the sleeping area must – (a) Be free from draughts; (b) Provide the dog with sufficient space to – (i) sit and stand at full height, (ii) lie down fully stretched-out, (iii) wag its tail, (iv) walk, and (v) turn around, Without touching another dog or the walls; (c) Have a floor area which is at least twice the area required for the dog in it to lie flat; and (d) If built after the date on which these Regulations come into force, have a floor area of at least 1.9 square metres. (3) Each kennel unit must be clearly numbered and there must be a system in place which ensures that information about the dog or dogs in each kennel is available to all staff and any inspector. (4) Each dog must have constant access to its sleeping area. (5) Each dog must have a clean, comfortable and warm area within its sleeping area where it can rest and sleep. (6) Each exercise run must have a single, safe, secure, waterproof roof over a minimum of half its total area. (7) Where a dog poses a health or welfare risk to other dogs, it must be kept on its own in a kennel unit and, if that kennel unit adjoins to another kennel unit, any adjoining wall must be of full height and width so as to prevent the dog from coming into physical contact with any other dog. (8) Only dogs from the same household may share a kennel unit.

20. The Tribunal’s powers in relation to an appeal against a refusal or revocation of a licence are set out in Regulation 24. Regulation 24(1) provides that “Any operator who is aggrieved by a decision by a local authority to (a) refuse to grant or renew a licence or (b) to revoke a licence, may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.” . The period within which an operator may bring an appeal is twenty-eight days, beginning with the day following the date of the decision. Regulation 24(4) states that “On appeal, the First-Tier Tribunal may overturn or confirm the local authority’s decision, with or without modification.” .

21. When making its decision, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the Respondent and takes a fresh decision on the evidence available to it, giving appropriate weight to the Respondent’s decision as the person tasked by Parliament with making such decisions ( R (Hope and Glory Public House Limited v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2011] EWCA Civ 31 , as approved by the Supreme Court in Hesham Ali (Iraq) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] UKSC 60 , at paragraph 45).

22. The burden of proof in satisfying the Tribunal that the Respondent’s decision(s) were wrong rests with the Appellant, and the standard is on the balance of probabilities. Documents provided

23. The Tribunal was provided with a 337-page Hearing Bundle, a 207-page Authorities Bundle, and a 115-page Supplementary Bundle in advance of the hearing. The Hearing Bundle included statements of Amanda Tinsley, undated, and William Hodges, dated 22 nd July 2025. The Tribunal had read and considered all of these documents before making its decision. Grounds of Appeal

24. The Appellant’s Notice of Appeal was received by the Tribunal on 7 th February 2025 in respect of the decision of 29 th January 2025. The outcome being sought is for the Respondent’s decision to refuse the renewal to be overturned. The reasons for the appeal are not contained with the completed GRC1 form which was submitted to the Tribunal, but are stated to be set out in a number of exchanges of correspondence between 31 st January 2025 and 5 th February 2025. In summary, the Appellant raises the following grounds: i) That the Appellant has always been content to undertake any alterations that might be necessary, but was not informed of any necessary changes before the inspection. ii) That no previous inspection revealed any issues with sleeping areas, temperature control or cleanliness, and at least two of the previous inspections were carried out after the 2018 Regulations came into force. The fact that no notice was given by the Respondent puts some blame for the failings on their side. iii) That because of the problems they were having with building repairs, none of the affected buildings were being used to board animals. There had been a significant issue with subsidence and the concerned buildings were not being used at the time of the inspection. iv) That the building repairs were being expedited by their insurers. v) That the cattery / cat pens had been closed down for more than a year at the time of the inspection and there is no plan to reopen them until the repairs are completed. vi) That the dog kennels to the rear of the property had been unoccupied for the same period and for the same reason as the cattery, and would remain so until the repairs are completed. vii) That the owner had not been aware that a friend’s cat was being looked after by their daughter on site because of the cat owner’s medical emergency. This care was not provided for payment, but was instead being provided simply to assist the owner, who was a friend of their daughter’s friend. viii) That none of their working practices had been identified as needing change by any of the previous inspectors who had attended the premises over the years, and they had not been notified of any necessary changes by the Respondent. ix) That there had been a power failure the evening before the inspection, which caused the low temperatures in the kennel block. This was not rectified until 8am on the morning of the inspection. The temperatures are now back to normal.

25. The appeal in respect of the decision of 11 th June 2025 was admitted out of time by Judge Dwyer on 6 th January 2025. The grounds in relation to this appeal are set out in the witness statements of Amanda Tinsley (undated) and William Hodges, dated 22 nd July 2025, and are advanced on the basis that the Appellant had, by this time, acted upon the remedial action which had been identified in the Inspectors report from January 2025 by completing and updating the various policies and records which were required to be completed, and additionally completing the following works: (i) Installed name and date boards outside each kennel. (ii) Installed thermostatically controlled heat lamps in each kennel to ensure that all are kept at the correct temperature. (iii) Installed new metal grilles to the bottom half of each kennel door. (iv) Installed privacy boards in the kennels. Response to the Notice of Appeal

26. The Respondent provided a Response to the Notice of Appeal on 17 th April 2025. The Response is at pages 41 to 50 of the Hearing Bundle, and a summary of that Response, in relation to the appeal against the decision of 29 th January 2024 is set out below: (i) The Inspector was not made aware during the inspection that the kennels were damaged by subsidence. The kennels referred to in his inspection report, namely where he had specific concerns with cleanliness and temperature, were occupied at the time of his inspection. (ii) The kennel units were showing signs of disrepair and there was no evidence of planned maintenance. (iii) The kennel units had no specific sleeping area, with just a wooden board that creates a slight step for a dog to get over separating the area from the rest of the run. (iv) That there was no evidence that routine cleaning took place, with significant dust and cobwebs being visible. (v) That there was a significant issue with cleanliness in the kennels. (vi) That the kennel units do not meet the required minimum standards for a suitable environment. Dogs must be able to separate themselves from other animals or people in a safe space, and an open plan space does not provide this option. (vii) The kennel units were below the absolute minimum temperatures permitted on the date of the inspection. (viii) The isolation units were not draught free, had no hearting source, and appeared to have long-standing water problems, as evidence by the growth of algae. They are not suitable. (ix) Despite the Appellant raising that the issues identified in the report of 29 th January 2025 were not raised in two previous inspections, the responsibility for complying with the Regulations is squarely upon the licensee, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. (x) That the Appellant had failed to keep adequate records and suitable policies, which had not been reviewed since 2019. Some documents and written policies were missing, demonstrating that the business had not undertaken any self-evaluation to reflect the effectiveness of the procedures. (xi) No staff training records were available on site, and it was consequently not possible to determine staff competency or awareness of what policies were in place. (xii) The inspection identified 26 conditions not being adhered to for the kennels and a further 29 conditions not being adhered to for the cattery units. This is not a minor failing. (xiii) The conditions for the cat being housed in the cattery were not suitable for a cat, regardless of whether this was for a paying customer or by way of emergency housing for the owner. (xiv) The cattery units were showing signs of significant dust and cobwebs, indicating that routine cleaning was not taking place, there was no defined sleeping area, and the units were below the absolute minimum temperature permitted.

27. The Appellant chose not to provide a Reply to the Response. The Hearing

28. The hearing took place in person at Huntingdon Law Courts on 2 nd December 2025. Evidence was given on behalf of the Appellant by William Hodges and Amanda Tinsley. Mr Hodges explained that at the time of the inspection on 20 th January 2025 there was no change to the kennel layout or setup, apart from the main kennel block being the only part of the site which remained in use. He detailed that the North Kennel Block and the cattery had not been used for over 9 months by that time. He did not consider that the Inspector should have based some of his findings on the areas which were not being used at that time, and only the Courtyard Kennels should have been part of the inspection. He stated that the kennel block was twenty to thirty years old, and that there is no draught if the outer door to the kennel is closed, and that the doors are always closed at night. He explained that the kennels have cavity walls and insulated loft space to assist in retaining heat, and that they are of the same quality as would be used in a bungalow. He stated that his original plan was to reinstate the kennels in the North Kennel Block, but they have subsequently decided to turn that whole area into an indoor exercise area. He stated that they could board twenty dogs in eleven kennels, if they were housing dogs from the same household, with this being the maximum, but otherwise this would be one dog per kennel. He asserted that the January decision was wrong on the basis that the inspection was carried out over the entire premises, when it should have been limited to the kennel block which was being used.

29. In relation to the second decision under appeal, namely the decision of 11 th June 2025, Mr Hodges and Ms Tinsley explained in some detail what changes they had put into place following the refusal of their licence renewal in January 2025. They explained that they had carried out these changed and installed new heat lamps, metal grilles and partition panels in the kennels to action the recommendations in the Inspector’s first report. Ms Tinsley explained the purpose of the photographs at pages 86 to 89 of the Hearing Bundle, which was to demonstrate that larger dogs could be appropriately housed in the kennels.

30. The Respondent made submissions in response, which included that the first application was made on the basis of a renewal of the existing licence, which was for forty dogs and twenty cats, and that the Inspector did not recall a conversation with Ms Tinsley about only eleven kennels being in use at that time. The second inspection was undertaken on the understanding that the application was being submitted for a total of thirty dogs. However, putting that aside, the kennel units do not comply with the Regulations, and that even if draught was excluded, the sleeping area in each kennel is not enclosed, and the sleeping area is not such as would enable the dogs in the photographs provided by the Appellant to turn around in without touching the walls. The floor area within the sleeping area must also be sized so that the floor area is at least twice the area required for the dog to lie flat in, which it is not. These are requirements of the Regulations (Schedule 4, paragraph 7), and this has not changed since the first inspection. The Respondent submitted that this assessment in the May 2025 inspection was based on a labrador being housed in the kennels, which is a medium sized dog. The Respondent additionally confirmed that even if the January 2025 inspection had been based solely on the courtyard kennels, which the Appellant states it should have been, the result of the inspection for the kennels would not have changed, as the kennels were not compliant with Schedule 4, subsection 7(2) of the Regulations by virtue of the sleeping area not being of suitable size and the area not being enclosed. It would therefore have failed for this reason alone.

31. The Respondent submitted that the welfare of the animals is paramount, and in the current form, as at the date of the inspection in May 2025, the kennels did not comply with the Regulations. However, the Respondent was clear to state that the kennels could be made compliant if the sleeping areas are made larger in size and the sleeping area is enclosed so as to exclude draught in that area, but a new inspection would be required. Discussion and Conclusions

32. The Tribunal recognises how it may seem unfair that the Animal Welfare Inspector in 2025 did not share the same views as the previous inspector who inspected the site on 6 th November 2018 and 1 st November 2022. On both of those occasions, the kennels and catteries were both assessed as being of low risk and a licence was granted for the boarding of dogs in kennels and the boarding of cats under the Regulations. Those Regulations came into force on 1 st October 2018, and as such, the same standards would have applied to those inspections as they did in 2025. However, it is evident that since that time, which was by the time of the January 2025 inspection some three years later, some buildings at the site had fallen into disrepair, with subsidence being referred to by the Appellant as a cause of some of that damage. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that the Inspector in January 2025 observed the same standards as were observed by the previous inspector on the last occasion in 2022, and as the two reports indicate, there were numerous failings in terms of the conditions and procedures in place for both the kennels and the cattery. The Appellant does not accept that the inspection in January 2025 should have been based upon the whole site, including the North Kennel Block, but as the Respondent submits, even if the inspection had focused solely upon the Courtyard Kennels, the end result would have been the same, with the application for a licence renewal being refused. This was as a consequence of the Courtyard Kennel Block not being compliant with the Regulations.

33. Although remedial action was planned by the Appellant, the Inspector was required to carry out his inspection on 20 th January 2025, and his report was based upon his findings. Whilst the Appellant submits that previous inspections did not highlight or identify any issues, and that the Respondent should have notified them of any material changes in requirements, it is the Appellant’s responsibility to ensure that there is adherence to any regulations which might apply to their business. It may be preferable for a local authority to provide some guidance to a licensed operator such as the Appellant, but it is not a requirement, and the duty to comply with all legislation falls to the operator alone. Nevertheless, it is noted that the Appellant has taken steps since the January 2025 inspection to remedy any deficiencies and to ensure compliance with the Regulations. It is therefore unfortunate that such efforts did not extend to ensuring that the sleeping area in each kennel is free from draughts when the main doors to the kennels are kept open through the day, or that it provides the dogs with sufficient space to turn around without touching the walls. These are requirements of Schedule 4, subsections 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(b)(v) of the Regulations, and the floor area must be at least twice the area required for the dog to lie flat in (Schedule 4, subsection 7(c)). It is evident from the photographs provided by the Appellant (at pages 86 to 89 of the Hearing Bundle) that this is not the case.

34. Both Ms Tinsley and Mr Hodges raised concerns about the privacy boards that they fitted to the sleeping areas of the kennels following the first inspection in January 2025, which they hoped would exclude draughts from the sleeping areas. Their concerns are principally that this creates a health and safety issue, as if a dog is anxious or scared, then if it cannot flee from an approaching staff member, when the sleeping area only permits a dog to flee past the staff member, then it may bite. This, it is submitted, would not be the case if the dog could leave by another route. This may well be the case, and it is acknowledged that Ms Tinsley and Mr Hodges undoubtedly have some experience in handling dogs within confined spaces, and the risks may therefore have to be managed in some other manner. However, the privacy boards, as they are, do not fully enclose the sleeping area, and would be highly unlikely to completely exclude any draught if the external door to the kennels was open.

35. Having regard to all of the evidence in these appeals, we are satisfied to the requisite standard that the Appellant’s kennels were not compliant with Schedule 4, subsection (7) of the Regulations on either 20 th January 2025 or 11 th June 2025 for the reasons set out above. In addition to rectifying the other critical failings identified in the inspection reports, to gain compliance with the Regulations, the Appellant would need to change the layout of the sleeping areas so that it is compliant with Schedule 4. Whilst some steps had been taken by the time of the second inspection to remedy matters, these did not go far enough, and it may well be that fully enclosed sleeping areas are needed within the kennels to exclude any draughts, in addition to increasing the overall areas of the sleeping areas within each kennel so as to provide the dog with sufficient space to turn around without touching the walls, as a bare minimum. Schedule 4, subsection (7)(d), which would require a floor area of at least 1.9 square metres for any building built after the Regulations came into force in October 2018 does not apply in this instance as the building concerned is some twenty to thirty years old.

36. The appeals are dismissed. Signed: Date: Judge Armstrong-Holmes 24 th February 2026