By Myles Cook
RESIDENTS of The Hawthorns in Corringham found themselves defeated in their battle opposing the planning application for 74 Fobbing Road as last night’s Planning Committee meeting saw the proposal approved by members.
The whole issue hinged on the “very special circumstances” cited as the reason to approve the plans. The reporting officer at the meeting stated that the removal of other existing buildings and a spoil heap on the site combined with the erection of a Jackoustic Environmental Reflective Noise Barrier creates a “potential net gain to the green belt land that outweighed the harm of the illegally erected kennel building and the associated noise.”
Resident’s spokeswoman, Christina Pumfrey, put forward her case, citing the excessive noise from the boarded dogs and the lack of credible safeguards against it.
Mrs Pumfrey claimed that the “rights and needs” of the residents were being ignored as were planning issues and the “illegal” construction of the kennels two years ago.
Evidence of the noise nuisance, (filmed by some of the residents) to back up their complaints, was deemed as inadmissible by the investigating officer on a previous visit, Ms Pumfrey claimed.
Lee Housden, the applicant’s son, told the committee that the Housden family not only work with the RSPCA, the Metropolitan Police and a local charity with housing dogs but had done so since 1975. He stated that they have taken in council stray dogs and that the kennel building was constructed to bring the accommodation up to council standards.
The reporting officer confirmed Mr Housden’s assertion that the Environmental Health Department have not upheld any complaints regarding noise nuisance at the site.
The committee voted to approve the application but there were a number of abstentions.
Afterwards YT spoke to the residents to gauge their reaction
Resident Thomas Dove said: “We sat and listened to all the pros and cons of whether it constituted green belt or not green belt but our argument wasn’t about whether it was green belt or not, it was about the amount of noise that was coming from it and, whether it’s commercial or taking in stray dogs. As was said, twelve noisy dogs are twelve noisy dogs.”
Resident Richard Kaszycki: “What we just witnessed here is about taking pity on dogs and not looking at the planning application and responding and voting on an application for an illegal building that actually causes noise due to twelve dogs. Whether the dogs are actually boarders, they’re paid for, they’re commercial, it doesn’t matter. They make noise and the residents have been totally ignored.
We had a petition of 50 people around the site. We had 17 letters of complaint. Yes, we did have enforcement people come around and actually check but, unfortunately, somehow the noise of the dogs was taken away as a result of the fact that, we think, people knew the enforcement people were coming over.
“So, yes, we haven’t had any noise for the last six months but that’s because they’ve been very, very careful and not been putting any dogs in there while the planning applications have been submitted then withdrawn then submitted and then withdrawn.
“The local residents have actually been trying to make contact with the local planning officers. I particularly called up the individual that was responsible for this application and, unfortunately, I reported the fact that some of the information we submitted in the complaints was missing. It appeared on the website a day later.
There is one letter that was submitted from one of the houses that actually isn’t even up on the website today but, at the same time, the planning officer confirmed that she’d received it. I don’t understand that. There is something not quite right here.”
Applicant Jacqulynn Housden said: “We’re just happy that it’s come to a closure and now we can draw a line under it.”
Applicant’s son, Lee Housden said: “I’d like to thank all the people who helped us and we can continue doing our charity work helping the dogs that have been abandoned, abused and find them new homes. Thanks everybody involved.”
An interesting footnote , with the Pegasus club in close proximity
With the East Thurrock football club using the Pegasus ground the amount of noise that will generate , complaining about the noise from dogs Thurrock council wouldn’t really have a leg to stand on. You can thank John Kent for that , especially when you consider he’s took the noise away from East thurrock football club and now trying to place it at Pegasus club. Well done john, specially how you sit as president of East thurrock football club which will be enjoying a large housing development on. It When Mike will you be writing the real story behind this , which is well over due together with other story’s. people of this borough are not stupid and have had enough which certainly isn’t reflected by the local media.
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
re dog kennels in corrlngham.last night we witnessed the passing of democracy, from our councillors, when they rode shoddily over the residents wishes for some peace and quiet and came down on the side of dogs.also where was our ward councillor?
Unfortunately, the law does not allow objectors any right of appeal.
The ombudsman is the only route open and this cannot change the decision. So we are stuck with a decision which favoured dogs over 52 residents’ protests.
As a “lover of green belt land, quiet and animals of all sorts” I would respectfully suggest that you do not visit the location for any length of time as you might begin to understand how the local residents might have had the edge knocked off of that feeling you are still fortunate enough to enjoy.
As someone who has sat through the various planning committee meetings over the past two years and observed the proceedings, it is on record that the chair of the committee allowed an additional speaker in support of the applicants in one meeting but denied the opposing speaker any additional time another. Mrs Cook counsels against making threats and I’m not sure what she means. I’ve not read or seen these but perhaps the losers in this case don’t feel very fairly treated for this reason.
The time, money, effort and emotions spent on this issue has been such a waste for all. It could have been resolved for the benefit of all concerned from the very beginning if the applicant had considered others and communicated with the neighbouring residents directly or through the ward councillors before building the structure in the present location. Had this happened then a plan could have been achieved that would have not only allowed the applicant to continue his work with dogs but would have also eliminated any potential impact on the local amenities (considered location of structure). Plus there would have been no need for the planning committee to enter the realms of a “very special circumstances” debate.
Finally I would ask where our ward councillors were amidst all this?