Friday, December 8, 2023

No love lost as battle of the Corringham kennels set to resume (on Valentines Day)

IT NEARLY came to blows last time and emotions are already being tested as the planning application for kennels in Fobbing Road, Corringham return to the planning committee this week (Thursday Feb 14th).

Emotions spilled over to such an extent in the public gallery last year (October) that a security guard had to be called in.

The whole issue first came to light in June 2011 when residents made a complaint regarding noise coming from 74 Fobbing Road, the home of Kynite Boarding kennels.

YT understands that at this point, the council discovered that there were kennels there that had been built without planning permission. In September 2011, planning permission was tabled. Due to a number of bureaucratic barriers, the application was re-submitted in September 2012.

It was refused and an enforcement notice was put in place.

Now the planning application is back on the table and this time it is recommended for approval.

A number of eyebrows have been raised that approval has been recommended based on very special circumstances.

Planning officers report:

“Whilst the kennel building represents inappropriate development, the removal of existing lawful structures and the spoil heap are considered in this instance to represent Very Special Circumstances for the retention of the kennel addition to these structures, the applicant proposes to remove a spoil heap building.

“The benefit that would be gained to the openness and character of the Green Belt from the removal of these structures and the spoil heap is considered to outweigh the harm caused by the erection of the kennels building in this instance.

“The proposal is therefore considered to be a justifiable exception to Green Belt policy PMD6 in this instance and due to the very special circumstances put forward by the Applicant.”

A spokesperson for the residents on Fobbing Road has detailed their objection.

“Our main objections are that it appears that Thurrock Council do not appear to be applying planning application processes and procedures fairly and consistently at all.

“There seems to have been bias in favour of the applicant in a number of ways. Our rights and needs are being ignored. We are many people and they are one family. The development is in a residential area.

“The kennels were built without permission in green belt over two years ago and three applications later have now recommended it be approved after refusing it on the grounds previously that it did not satisfy very special circumstances.

“The only material change now is that it will not trade as a boarding kennel but all dogs, fee-paying or otherwise make the same noise. 12 noisy dogs are 12 noisy dogs.

“The application does not include any credible safeguards for us in terms of noise. The proposed acoustic screen is ridiculous and we cannot see how it will work. If it is a miraculous invention, dogs have to be exercised outside of the screened kennels several times a day.

“As for the process: a petition consisting of 50 names was lost by the council and by the time this was discovered it was too late.

“The latest objections have not been processed properly. Objectors have not had letters of acknowledgement, not all letters have been posted on the portal, information included in the objections has been missed off (maps) and anyone lucky enough to have received notification has been given 36 hours of notice within working days to agree and prepare a statement in objection. ie. letters received Sat lunch and a statement must be sent to Dem Services by Tuesday at noon.

“It is clearly being rushed through perhaps to avoid the Planning Inspectorate hearing the case as planned in March 2013.

YT is planning to the owners of the kennels to see how they view their application.


  1. How can Thurrock Council possibly ignore the the objections of so many people surrounding this development – removing a spoil heap and outbuildings that no one will ever see against the noise nuisance which will blight the lives of so many – is this a joke ? Thurrock Council should consider moving the date of the planning meeting to April fools day and not on Valentines day !!!

  2. What with noisy dogs and thousands of football supporters screaming at the Tops of their voices, this area won’t be quiet for much longer. Thanks Mark.

  3. It looks like to me that the officers when they recommend this on two previous occasions for refusal were completely wrong and before the inspectorate makes them wrong they’ve had a change of mind. I think the inspectorates should still look at it just to make sure . I wonder how many other officer recommendations are completely wrong. That’s why people should always appeal and I personally think the officers stick there noses in to much . Otherwise what’s the point of having a planning committee?
    Well done mark

  4. Thurrock council have not been professional with the approach and dealings with this case. The noise nuisance will not be tolerable.Why not have a compromise move the kennels right away from the Residential area further into the 9 acres of land and then they could continue with the care of there dogs.

  5. Dear Thurrock Council

    I would like to build a NASA space shuttle launch pad on my land in Corringham and have fulfilled the following criteria which I believe makes me eligible for planning permission:

    1. Total disregard for neighbours- check
    2. High fences so no one can see what I am building – check
    3. Friends in high places- check

    One small step for dogs, a giant leap backwards for man-kind.

  6. So many people objecting to this application,it appears that 12 dogs are more impotant than 50+residents. what are the special/justifiable exceptions that have allowed these kennels to be erected on green belt land, is it the removal of the spoil heap which will free up new green space. This spoil heap was made by the applicants possibly by the construction of breeding ponds for the main fishing lake. This spoil heap and the so called old dog kennels cannot be seen from the road so how is it goingn to improve the area.There is no mention of disposal of all the dog faeces. If this application gets approval after three previous refusals there will be quite a few raised eyebrows

  7. This is mad. How can a whole neighbourhood be blighted by this? Surely elected members must put the needs of the majority of constituents first? Why doesn’t the applicant move to a rural area and keep as many dogs as he wants?

    Wonder what would happen if we all built whatever we liked in our gardens and then applied for permission when we were caught?

  8. Start learning the hard truth about Thurrock Council they don’t care about residents Fact 250 residents signed petition regarding width restriction in London road over turned by officer delegation who doesn’t even live in the borough but this could only been done to facilitate ICG in the focus core strategy, 2000 residents signed a petition in West Thurrock concerning HGVs in London Road and West Thurrock. Labour Councillor Gerrish submitted the petition in Full Council for the residents of his ward and he also as been against HGV and been knocking on doors for residents to sign his petition and talking in the community Forum against HGV but the leader of Thurrock Council Labour Leader John Kent Still included the Ash site in Oliver Road in the Focus core strategy this was done by a targeted consultation what nobody has seen, In a Nut shell That’s the same as asking Hitler if he liked the Nazi Party. the same site that Post Office wanted a development on but failed to do so, due to pressure from Bug life and other ecological groups incidentally This site is designated of great scientific and ecological importance No Disrespect to this company but compared to the Post Office with its Army of corporate Barristers failed to achieve development on this site . Yet this company the size of a pimple on a pigs arse compared to the PO seems to be on the road to achieve what the post office couldn’t so this might have something to do with MP Jackie Doyle Price used to have a political campaign office on this site Garry Hauge and Tory members using this company’s site as an association office and this company donates to the Tory Party all perfectly ok according to Leader John Kent Cheif Exec Graham Farrent and Thurrock’s legal department So Tomjodo get your Vaseline out and get used to it because thurrock council will carry on giving to your 50 residents the same as the 2000 until the media in Thurrock get the Truth out because they all know about the underhandedness but why they take funding from Thurrock Council which tantamount s to a bribe “let’s have it right they are not going to bite the hand that feeds them” and it’s no incentive for investigative journalism is it

  9. I have just started my spoil heap so with any luck I should have my new garage this time in 2015. Just need to plan ahead in Thurrock!

  10. Would the Thurrock Councillor’s be as “Accommodating ” if these kennels were built within stones throw of their own homes, I think not, !! – If they were am sure they wouldn’t think twice about rejecting the application. Councillors are supposed to represent the people, the sad thing is, that, I would never trust any of you again, no matter what the reason, for letting this farce go this far.

    If this application is passed, are we entitled to a tax rebate due to intolerable noise levels ? Does this set a precedent so that I can also illegally erect a building on the grounds of what is RIDICULOUS “special circumstances” then apply for planning permission later, after all, it can’t be one rule for them and another for the honest residents of fobbing road and hawthorns.

    How do you Councillors sleep at night, we certainly won’t be able to with the sounds of dogs howling and barking.

  11. Big round of applause for Mark Coxshall for supporting the applicant well done,
    Even the applicant thanked him for his support several times

  12. Re superman 12/2/13 did not take your advice about vaseline, got well and truly stuffed at the council meeting on thursday.

  13. Last night we saw Thurrock DEMOCRATIC Services at their very best:

    1. The committee members seeking clarification on what the definition of “special circumstances” is under planning laws and the response from the expert was that ” I Googled it earlier today and the definition is …….”
    2. The committee members seeking clarification on an explanation of “dB Attenuation” and the expert waffled on until everyone seemingly lost interest – perhaps he doesn’t have access to Google?
    3. There were suggestions to stop fly balling events at the site – no conditions seem to have been imposed
    4. There were suggestions to increase the height of the acoustic fence – again, no conditions seem to have been imposed

    Please all call up the Head of Thurrock Planning to request the recording and transcript of the events last night – it really does beat watching Strictly Come Dancing and I’m sure will sell out quickly.

    After events last night I’m embarrassed to live in Thurrock

  14. RK,
    I told you to get your Vaseline ready although a bit of a childish comment I agree but very accurate. It makes you wonder if Thurrock councils plaining department had any right to refuse this application twice In the first place, obviously not. So then you have to consider why they did, could it have been through input or pressure from a certain Councillor that we all know after making promises to the residents and then coming unstuck when it was imminent of coming to an appeal. So if I was the resident In that area I would ask the planning department for copy’s of the two previous reasons for not recommending this development and have them scrutinised because quiet clearly something is a miss. The circumstances haven’t changed since the original application and neither as the application , the only thing that has changed is the attitude of your obviously two faced councillor that has been advising you in these matters. I would like to point out to you if you send a letter into Thurrock’s democratic service and request to ask the councillor a question at full council he will have to give a full , honest and accurate account of he’s actions in this matter believe me that is the best way forward to get it all out in the open. Then you will see what side of the Kennel he’s really on and then your know all there is to know about Thurrock council.
    P.s try KY this time


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


More articles