Kennel Closure Demanded

Arun District Council has received 15 objections to the licence being renewed for New Carleton Kennels, one of them from a veterinary surgeon and several from owners who claim their dogs suffered from injury, illness and poor conditions while they were boarded there.

The vet accuses kennels owner Nigel Stentiford of causing unnecessary suffering by using a shock collar to treat behaviour problems in at least two dogs.

"By acting in such an irresponsible manner and by demonstrating a willingness to cause unnecessary suffering, he makes himself unsuitable to be involved in the running of boarding kennels," the vet's letter to Arun states.

Other letters received by the council claim that dogs boarded at the kennels were forced to lie on concrete floors with no bedding or water, and some had come away "cringing and frightened".

One couple blame their dog's death on the way it was treated at the kennels.

The licence for the kennels, owned and managed by Mr Stentiford and his wife, Lorraine, comes up for renewal at a meeting of Arun's licensing and enforcement committee tomorrow morning.

A report to the committee says council officials made two unannounced inspections in May and December last year, which involved full examination of the kennels, exercise areas, food storage and preparation areas, checks on the records kept and observation of the dogs present.

On both occasions, and during another visit last August, "the kennels were found to be well run with well maintained facilities, fully complying with the boarding licence conditions," the report states.

It adds: "At the time of visits, all dogs, throughout the premises, appeared well cared for and were provided with heating, bedding and water. The findings from the inspections have given no cause for concern."

Elsewhere in the report, council solicitor Bill Johnson advises the committee that, while concerns over whether the licence applicant is a fit and proper person, and whether the animals have been properly cared for, should be considered, "evidence of real substance would be required to justify refusal on these grounds".

Caution should be exercised, he adds, before the committee relied on objections from people who had withheld their names and/or addresses, as was the case for 14 of the 15 received.