PLANS for nine homes on a former greyhound kennel site in Horndon on the Hill have been refused after a debate in which councillors divided over green belt policy, housing need and the role of small developers.

Thurrock Council's planning committee voted by four to three at their meeting on Tuesday, 10 March, to reject the application from Pyrmont Homes Ltd, which sought permission to demolish the long-established Brooklyn Kennels on Black Bush Lane and replace it with nine detached houses.

The site, classified as grey belt under the 2024 national planning framework, drew strong views from both supporters and objectors, with eight letters of objection and nine in support.

Planning officer Nina Hicks presented her report to the committee and outlined concerns about the application to demolish the existing greyhound boarding kennels and associated structures on Black Bush Lane and build nine two storey homes — three three bed and six four bed properties. An existing chalet style dwelling would remain, creating a ten home enclave served by a new access road and internal loop layout.

The committee heard the 1.6-acre site sits outside the village boundary in a semi rural area characterised by scattered homes, woodland and agricultural fields. Although parts of the land qualify as Previously Developed Land, officers note this only applies to a portion of the plot, with significant areas open and undeveloped.

Officers said that while the land meets the definition of grey belt — a category introduced in the 2024 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to distinguish areas of green belt with weaker strategic function — the development failed the additional requirements necessary for homes to be deemed "not inappropriate".

Her report said the site is not a sustainable location, with no pavements, street lighting or safe pedestrian routes, and no nearby public transport links and argued future residents would be wholly reliant on private cars, breaching NPPF guidance.

How the site would have been laid out.

advertisement

Applicant Adam Beckford, a director of Pyrmont Homes, which was founded in 2017, said the land had been mischaracterised by officers.

"Sometimes reports can make things very different than they are on the ground. This is not open countryside," he said.

"It is a fully enclosed, long established commercial kennel site. For many years it operated as a place of business.

"We are simply replacing that with nine well-designed homes.

"It is difficult to see how that level of commercial development is acceptable and nine family homes is not."

Mr Beckford explained the reasoning behind the scheme, saying: "I live locally and am a small family housebuilder using local contractors.

"Over the last few years we have delivered a number of small developments.

"We are seeking to provide nine homes in a landscape setting.

"The council's own report says this site can be considered grey belt and the development will bring ecological enhancements", adding the scheme would include more than 100 new trees, habitat improvements and renewable energy measures.

He concluded: "If permission is granted these nine well designed homes will be delivered in 12 months.

"I'm not a developer – I'm a local builder employing local tradespeople."

He highlighted that highways, drainage, flood and ecology consultees had raised no objections.

Cllr Barry Johnson, who represents the Orsett ward in which the site sits, told colleagues the split showed the issue was "not one sided" and urged members to consider whether the proposal represented an acceptable compromise at a time of acute housing need.

He emphasised that the land was previously developed and argued the low density scheme would have less traffic impact than the former commercial kennels, saying: "I would suggest the traffic use would be far less than when dog trainers were coming and going."

Cllr Johnson said he believed the site was sustainable and had positive elements, suggesting the size and nature of the build was based on local knowledge and awareness and that others who might seek to develop it would be more speculative.

He said: "I would not approve inappropriate building in unacceptable locations but this does back used space to a formerly-used space. I dread to think what would happen if this site was not given proper consideration.

"This site could probably hold 30 to 35 houses, so I dread to think what could happen if this site isn't given proper consideration," he said.

However, he acknowledged the scheme did not provide affordable housing, though he noted national policy normally applies that requirement only to developments of ten homes or more.

Some on the committee insisted the location was fundamentally unsuitable. 

Cllr Cathy Sisterson said the site was so car dependent that "you wouldn't want to live there as a family. You just can't get out if you don't drive," warning that approving such schemes would set a "dangerous precedent".

Cllr Russell Cherry made comparuisons with other sites built on the nearby A128 that were very 'secluded'.

He added: "For years people have lived in the countryside where they have learned to walk safely. At night time they may well carry a torch or wear bright visible clothing. There are also people who use these lanes to ride horses or cycle on.

"It's a bit of an excuse that we must not be allowed to have cars and that we must adopty this oplan that we all use buses or that we have to cycle everywhere.

"I'm in favour of this site because it will produce quality houses in a good part of Thurrock."

Cllr Tom Kelly said the proposal was comparatively appropriate for a rural area and expressed concern that smaller builders were being "pushed out" by larger firms', adding: "Ultimately they do not have the capital to compete with the big developers."

He also challenged the veracity and consistency of officer opinions, saying: "In terms of sustainability the jury is out on that one. 300 metres up the road we were told a few months ago that you could build 49 homes in a rural location with one bus service.

"When you think about the amount of car movements on this development it's absolutely nothing. People know when they are moving onto this site, what they are moving on to. It's not all about choosing to walk or use a bike. People do choose to use cars.

"If you are going to be building rural, this is the sort of site."

However, a majority of members - Cllrs Aaron Green, Steve Liddiard, Mike Fletcher and Sisterson - sided with officers, concluding the scheme was unsustainable, overly urban in form and harmful to the green belt and voted to reject the application while Cllrs Russell Cherry, Srikanth Panjala and Kelly voted for it.