A White Christmas...?

It is difficult to really imagine the size of the Vineyard Farms planned new restaurant and visitor’s centre for Green Belt land in Upper Bush. The glossy brochures that have so impressed our local Council planning department and that show the hordes of smiling, happy, hippy visitors lounging around, with Mark Dixon’s Tracey Island in the background, don’t really give an indication of scale.

But this thing is big.

Really big.

To give you an indication of just how big Lord Foster’s Flying saucer is, I’ve taken the architect’s drawing of the above ground restaurant, visitor’s centre and ornamental lake (and remember, Vineyard Farms are calling all of this an “agricultural building” to get it exempted from the prohibition of new builds in Green Belt land) and superimposed, to scale, a full-sized football pitch next to it.

The Vineyard Farms complex, compared to the size of a standard football pitch...

You can see that what is above ground is much larger than a standard football pitch. (Just an agricultural building, remember?  Honest guv'nor.  Just a £30m agricultural building, just like wot you get on any farm, right?).

What you don’t see is the majority of the building that is underground. Under the lake is an 85m x 60m chamber for their actual wine making area, excavated into the hillside to a depth of 12 metres. From the eastern side of the restaurant block, the building radiates out underground for another 30 metres, to a depth of around 6-7 metres for the fermentation tanks and barrel room.

Barrow Hill is going to be essentially hollowed out to create Vineyard’s Farms’ underground lair.

And all that adds up to a simply enormous volume of chalk that needs to dug out for this grandiose scheme.

Simple arithmetic (and a bulking factor of 1.4 for chalk) shows that volume to be in the region of 160,000 cubic meters! 

This is a very conservative estimate, and does not include any of the likely required foundation works, or anything else they might be digging up as part of the project. It’s just the estimated volume of the chalk spoil that will have to be dug out for the underground caverns, based on the dimensions given in the architectural drawings.

In Section 5.1.5 of their Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) they admit that "the total material that will be moved is estimated to be more than 100,000 tonnes" but they somehow contend (in Section 3 of the CEMP) that:

"Finished site levels have been determined to negate the need to remove any spoil from site. During construction, should any excavation spoil be unearthed that cannot be re-used this will be removed from site and disposed of at a suitable licensed waste transfer facility..."

Unless they are planning to just pile up the chalk in ugly, white swathes everywhere in Bush Valley (which would actually fit in with the devastated, torn-up valley they have already ploughed up for their vines), this claim doesn’t seem to stand up.

The excavated chalk would cover a standard football field to a depth of 32 metres (100 feet).

Spread to a depth of 1 metre, it would cover 40 acres, or 12% of the whole of Bush Valley.

The top soil cover is pretty thin, and even if they kept all of the top soil from the above ground restaurant area and the car park, they will only have about 10,000 cubic meters to play with. That will only cover about 50,000 square metres of spread-out chalk spoil to a soil depth of around 8 inches  - about a third of the chalk dug out, even if it was spread as thickly as one metre around the valley.

It is clear that they will have to lift the top soil off of a huge area of Bush Valley just to bury their spoil.  The mess, the disturbance, noise, air-borne dust and sheer ugliness this will cause for a few years is entirely predictable. Poor old Cuxton, and particularly Upper Bush, have been through it all before. It will be on a similar scale to the way Dean Farm valley was despoiled forty years ago...

Dean Valley, top soil removal in the early 1980's - soon to be repeated in Bush Valley?

As above...

It's just not practical to import more top soil or export a lot of chalk off site. They’ll need another 20,000 cubic metres of top soil (or around 700 lorry loads!) imported to site to cover their chalk spoil even if they do spread it pretty thickly. That’s a lot of extra traffic that’s not included in any traffic plan. You can multiply that by five if they have to take the excess chalk off site.

Vineyard Farms have so far managed to bamboozle Medway Council planning department, but fortunately some of the other councillors on the Planning committee are becoming wary of the smoke and mirrors approach of Vineyards Farms in trying to hide the more inconvenient, vague or impractical aspects of their grandiose aspirations.

Vineyard Farms need to be pushed on a lot more detail on how they plan to manage their excavation (as well as a lot of other things). But will anyone get an opportunity to do so?

If they get their way, Bush Valley could be afflicted with a White Christmas – for ever!  

Vineyard Farms: Raising A Stink...?

One of the many interesting things I learned from last week’s Medway Council Planning meeting (which deferred a decision upon the Vineyard Farms plans for a luxury country club and restaurant complex on Green Belt land at Upper Bush) was the existence of a proposed “energy centre” as part of the development. Councillor Gary Etheridge mentioned that this would produce 46% of the power requirements of the Vineyard Farms new Xanadu (and asked where the other 54% was coming from…).

One of the many criteria a developer needs to meet in order to justify the rape of green belt land is to demonstrate that their proposals are “low carbon” (whatever that really means) and energy-efficient. Vineyard Farms intend to tick this big green box with their “energy centre”.

Very little detail on how this will work has been provided by them, perhaps on the basis that no-one can object to it if they don’t know anything about it. I had seen references to the production of energy from biogas as the preferred “green energy” source in the Vineyard Farms glossy brochures on the Medway Planning Portal, but I had not paid much attention to any of it as there was so little detail.

In short, it seems that the grape pomice (the stuff left over once all the juice has been squeezed out of the grapes) will be put into an anaerobic digester to make methane, which would then be burnt in a gas-fired generator set to produce power. Although Vineyard Farms haven’t said so, the system in their brochure looks very much like the containerised system provided by Qube Renewables, a 2018 UK biogas start-up that has just sold out to a Singapore-based company (part of the ongoing national asset-stripping process that sees any potentially worthwhile UK company bought up by overseas firms: “taking back control” I think it’s called…).

The Qube bio-energy set-up...

The Qube set-up looks somewhat experimental, comprising of a bunch of shipping containers, flexible hoses and tanks that don’t look very pretty at all and which will presumably be hidden away inside the “energy centre”. There isn’t a lot on-line about Qube Renewables beyond what’s on their web-site and it would be interesting to know if they actually have any working units in the UK.

In terms of the energy claims, the “46%” figure did actually add up when I did some back-of-a-beer-mat calculations. If you assume that the vineyard will be 900 acres and yields 3 tonnes of grapes per acre (typical low-end UK yields according to Mr. Internet), that’s 2700 tonnes of grapes. Pressing takes out 80% of the mass as the juice, the other 20% being pomice, so there will be 540 tonnes of that to feed to the little bugs in the bioreactor. It seems (according to Mr. Internet again) that you get around 150 cubic metres of biogas from a tonne of waste, and a cubic metre of biogas put into a gas-fired generator yields about 2KWh of energy. So if all goes well, the bio-digester should produce 150 x 540 x 2 = 162,000 KWh a year, a figure pretty close to the one Vineyard Farms quote in their glossies (158,000 KWh).

If all goes well…

Even when all is running smoothly, anaerobic digesters produce low levels of hydrogen sulphide, the rotten eggs smell. This has to be removed from the biogas as it is acidic and corrodes the gas combustor. Nevertheless, anaerobic digestion facilities tend to have a permanent whiff about them, something the Riggalls Court residents (and maybe the rest of Cuxton) might just get to find out for themselves.

The bugs in anaerobic digesters are delicate little things that need constant TLC. Feed them something they don’t like, or get the temperature wrong, and they die off. Sometimes the bugs just decide to die out of spite anyway. Anaerobic digestion can be a finicky technology. I used to work for a large company that had a biodigestion plant to treat its organic wastes, and it was forever stinking the place out (and the neighbouring town a mile or so away). When anaerobic digesters go wrong, they can also generate mercaptans, the smelliest substances known to man (methyl mercaptan has an odour threshold of one part per BILLION).

And indeed, nearly everywhere you find large anaerobic digestion plants, you’ll find complaints about the smell.

Of course, the Vineyard Farms operation is quite a small one in terms of bioreactors, so the amount of pungent gas should be relatively small. Their digester will also benefit from having a consistent quality of feedstock (unlike food waste-based plants) which should help to keep the bugs happy. Nevertheless, the energy centre is quite close to a residual area. Any problems with it and Cuxton will soon smell them. 

And so will the customers of Vineyards Farms restaurant and café. You can be pretty sure that in the event of the slightest pong, VF will pull the plug on their biogas plant, meaning that the whole operation won’t really be very “green” at all in energy terms. (Only a cynic would suggest that’s why the vent stack from the energy centre is on the eastern side of the winery, so that any smell would be carried away from it by the prevailing south-westerly wind and blown over Cuxton instead…)

The Air Quality plan says nothing about smells or hydrogen sulphide levels. Perhaps it should.

The Qube Renewables stuff still has a whiff (no pun intended) of the unproven about it. Perhaps Vineyard Farms need to show Medway Council (and Cuxton residents) that this technology is a reliable long-term option with no stinky down-sides.

There are other unanswered questions as well. Where are Vineyard Farms going to store 500 tonnes of pomice? They say they are going to put the stuff in “vacuum bags” for storage. I can’t see this stopping it from decomposing, another possible source of odour when the bags are opened. In reality, I think the pomice will have to be properly dried for storage (off-site? More vehicle movements?) which itself would be energy intensive. Perhaps we need to know more about the pomice storage plans.

Personally, I  think the Vineyard Farms “energy centre” is just another smoke-screen, along the lines of the “there’s-no-traffic-in-Bush-Road” smoke-screen and the “local jobs” smoke-screen and the “our-luxury-£30m-country-club-is-really-just-an-agricultural-building” smokescreen. Maybe the bio-reactor will work, maybe it won’t, but either way they’ll get the “green” box tick they need and if they bin it a year or so into operation, who’s to penalise them? They’ll have what they want by then.

I think they should be made to have a Plan B. Vineyard Farms were quick to write off wind and solar power generation as they allegedly didn’t want to spoil the ANOB, but their country club will do that anyway. So why not put a few wind turbines and solar panels (and a bit of battery storage) at the southern end of Bush Valley, an area which is already disfigured by rows of pylons? 

The pylon run at the southern end of Bush Valley: room for a few wind turbines?

They could easily run the wires underground down to their club-house. Nobody would complain, I think, (not even me!) and it would be a much less risky and less smelly bet than anaerobic digestion as a means of providing green power. And if the biogas option really does turn out to be able to generate 46% of the building’s power needs, why not go for the other 54% anyway, like Councillor Gary Etheridge suggested?

Or is cost the real worry?  Is the “energy centre” really just the cheapest option for a disposable asset, to be quietly dropped when the “tick in the green box” is achieved?

We’ve lost our chance to raise an objection to Vineyards Farms energy plans, but maybe we can still write to our Medway councillors now that they awaiting “more information” from them prior to another planning meeting.

Perhaps we could say that we are concerned about the proximity of the Vineyard Farms energy centre’s anaerobic digestion plant to Cuxton village, and could ask them to ask Vineyard Farms:

·         Are their any other biogas generation units similar to their planned one in current operation in the UK?

·         If so, are there any issues with odour or reliability?

·         Where are Vineyard Farms planning to store their annual 500 tonnes of grape pomice prior to use in the bioreactor?

·         How will the pomice be treated to prevent decomposition during storage?

·         Will an odour or hydrogen sulphide condition be added to the local Air Quality Plan?

·         What are Vineyard Farms’s alternative plans for renewable energy in the event that their biogas plant proves unviable?

Or we could just let Vineyard Farms get away with being unchallenged on this. It could be a bit more than just a rat that we are smelling here…

Our Kelly...

Update (11th January):  Ms. Tolhurst has been writing to her constituents, as follows...

"I have become aware that there appears to be some confusion within the local community regarding my own position on this application. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my position on this important matter.

…. From the outset, I have never confirmed that I outright support the application (my emphasis) and have not submitted any written letter of support to the Council’s planning committee…. But, I did say that I am in favour of a winery in principle given the jobs it will create and the financial benefits to the community and wider Medway Towns..."

Fake picture, true sentiment..."in principle..."  

Compare that to what she originally sent out to concerned constituents a couple of months or so ago...

"I can confirm that, on balance, I am in favour of this application (my emphasis) due to the jobs it will create both on site and in the supply chain, the financial benefits to the community and wider area, and it could help to secure the surrounding land us as agricultural rather than leaving it open to housing developers...

So, to avoid "confusion", let's be clear.  Kelly was "in favour" of the application.  Now, she's "never confirmed that I outright supported the application" but "I am in favour of a winery in principle". The difference between an MP being "in favour" of something but not "outright supporting" it is lost on me. It smacks of fence-sitting.

I think maybe she's changed her mind, simple as that.  She has a history of doing that.

That's good.  And from what she is saying above, maybe she supports the winery, but not where it's going.  Which is exactly where Cuxton Parish Council is coming from. As am I.

Or maybe she doesn't. Who really knows with Our Kelly? 

Perhaps Ms. Tolhurst might even come out and say she supports Cuxton Parish Council's view that the Vineyard Farms apparent "must have" need to build their wine manufacturing plant at Upper Bush because of "quality reasons" is just a smoke-screen, and that it should be built elsewhere.  

But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I wonder what Tracey Crouch would do?

Medway Council Planning Meeting - The Winery...

The above embedded video (note: now taken down, presumably by Medway council) is a recording of the council planning meeting held at the council offices in Gun Lane on Wednesday 8^th. December at 6.30 pm. The discussions leading to a deferral on the decision took over two hours, which for many would be painful to endure.

Nevertheless, it was a very revealing meeting in many respects and I was glad to have attended in person. For anyone interested, I have provided a written record of the meeting and my own observations below. Just in case anyone thinks I am trying to put an “anti-vineyard” spin on things, I’ve quoted timelines so you can see the debate for yourself, and which will allow you to scroll through the video and draw your own conclusions. 

Even that is rather a long read however, so initially, I have provided a summary of my notes below:

Cllr Dave Harris, Head of Planning was clearly very enthusiastic about the proposals and recommended approval. Although he initially stressed the need for “balance” in making the decision, he presented only the developer’s view of key issues, with no mention of any of the points raised in the detailed objections raised by both Kent ANOB and Cuxton Parish Council. (Indeed, these notes were mysteriously not appended to the Supplementary Agenda for the meeting, even though Cllr. Harris said they were). He also made several other dubious assertions during his presentation, as well as some in his responses to questions from other councillors.

Whilst Cllr. Harris was given 30 minutes to make his case in favour of the development, Cllr. Matt Fearn (struggling with a heavy cold!) was only given 5 minutes. He nevertheless managed to articulate the concerns of Cuxton village regarding the legitimacy of the application, its adverse impact upon the ANOB, the traffic situation and the overall negative impact upon the quality of life in the area.

During the questions and subsequent debate, it became clear that many of the councillors present were unhappy with the approach of Vineyard Farms, some even describing it as “a slap in the face”, “disrespectful” and “a bit of a smokescreen”. In particular, many were concerned about the obvious traffic issues and they were not reassured by the assertions of either their own Transport Planner or Vineyard Farms’s submissions that that the proposals would not significantly compound traffic issues in Bush Road.

They therefore voted to defer the decision until early next year, pending (yet more) presentations by the developer, as well as a site visit by members of the planning committee.

Note that no-one from the village will be permitted to attend these additional Vineyard Farms presentations, or to present our objections in detail.

Councillors also appeared not to know that the critical traffic survey upon which so much depends (conducted by Mayer Brown on behalf of Vineyard Farms as part of their planning submission) was somewhat suspect.

Full notes:

0h:20m. Councillor (Cllr) Chris Buckwell, the meeting chairman, gives introductions and settles some procedural business.

0h:28m:30s. Cllr. Dave Harris, Head of Planning, describes the background to the Vineyard Farms submission, the project location and design. In his opening remarks, Cllr. Harris refers to the need for a balanced approach to considering the Vineyard Farms proposals, and in passing mentions the detailed objections by Cuxton Parish Council and Kent ANOB. (At no point subsequently does he mention even one significantly negative aspect of the plans. So much for “balance”…).

He enthusiastically endorses the proposals and recommends (57m30s) that the committee should approve them. During his presentation, he makes a number of questionable assertions…

• He stated that the detailed rebuttals of the Vineyard Farms proposals provided by both Cuxton Parish Council were appended, in full, to Supplementary Agenda given to those present (29m:48s). Cllr. Buckwell later (59m:30s) pointed out that these key documents (the only ones providing a counterpoint to the Vineyard Farms narrative) had, in fact, been curiously omitted from the Supplementary Agenda, though he did not say why.
• Cllr. Harris stated (36m:10s) that the development was solely of an agricultural nature, and that the restaurant, wine tasting area, café etc were ancillary to the main business. The proposed building (as was pointed by several councillors later) is, in fact, a mixed-use development of a type that is prohibited by the current National Planning Policy Framework.
• Cllr. Harris stated that because an agricultural building is exempt from Green Belt planning constraints, Vineyard Farms could just erect a series of ugly sheds to house their wine processing plant if they so chose, without the need to seek planning permission (52m:05s). He later repeated that veiled “threat” several times throughout the rest of the meeting. Towards the end of the meeting however, it became clear that this threat only exists in Cllr. Harris’s imagination: Vineyard Farms themselves have never made such a threat and that planning permission would still be required for any access from Bush Road.  This begs the question, “if the proposed winery building is solely an agricultural building, why are we even talking about planning permission? Couldn’t Vineyard Farms just build it, if it is exempt from Green Belt constraints as they claim?”
• Cllr. Harris (51m:35s) refers to the instance of case law and claims that it gives credence to the assertion that the development can be classified as purely an agricultural building. The attempt to use the cited piece of case law to justify the proposals has been debunked in the Kent ANOB objection (cf. Medway Planning Portal), which was neither mentioned nor referenced.

Cllr. Harris also refers (33m:20s) to the “positive impact” of vine planting and claims that it gives the area a “Kentish feel”. Even as a personal opinion this is highly questionable: how do ugly masses of poles, scaffolding and steel wire with a monoculture of stunted vines offer a preferable alternative to the colourful seasonal changes of the fields of wheat and barley that we used to enjoy?

He also mentions the Energy Centre (35m:35s) that will allegedly produce 46% of the winery building’s energy needs. Much importance was attached to the ability of this energy centre to give the development its “green” credentials, but no technical details have been provided to the public during the planning consultation stage to allow any review of such claims or of their potential consequences.

Cllr. Fearn was then allowed to voice his concerns regarding the proposals on behalf of Cuxton and Halling. Despite the Head of Planning being allowed half an hour to promote approval of the plans, Cllr. Fearn was allocated only five minutes by the Chairman (1h.00m.05s) to articulate the case for rejection.

During his brief presentation (starts 1h:00m:15s) Cllr. Fearn addresses the following key points:

• Intrusion into the green belt on the pretence that the proposed winery is an “agricultural” building. It is an affront to the principles of the NPPF and meets few, if any of the criteria specified for permitted development in the Green Belt
• The negative impact of the construction and operation of the facility upon the area and its utility as a refuge of tranquillity
• The inaccessibility of the proposed development site and the negative impact that tourist, construction and operational traffic will have upon the local community
• The application fails to demonstrate any tangible benefit to the local community, the majority of benefit being solely for the owners of the vineyard
• Approval of the application will effectively provide a “green light” for green belt development everywhere.
• The strength of local feeling against the development

In conclusion (1h:04m:57s) Cllr Fearn recommended that the committee listen to the local people, refuse the application and request Vineyard Farms to find an alternative to their current proposals, one that offers adequate infrastructure and adequate access for their needs, and does not intrude into the local ANOB.

Cllr Buckwell then opened the question session (1h:05s:30s) and led with a question to Mr. Robert Neave (Principal Transport Planner). Cllr Buckwell described his own knowledge of the problems of access to Cuxton and pointed out that the village is effectively only accessible via the A228 and from that end of Bush Road. He asked if the committee should give a much greater weight to the traffic issues in Cuxton given his comments on the difficulties of access.

Mr. Neave (1h:07m:50s) said he felt that, in his opinion, existing survey data indicated that the development would not cause an unacceptable impact upon traffic volumes, highways safety or compliance with planning guideline criteria. (Note: he and the other councillors appeared unaware of the highly defective nature of the traffic assessment data provided by Meyer Brown, the contractor working for Vineyard Farms).

Cllr. Adeoye (1h:09m:58s) stated that she felt the developers had not made adequate provision for biodiversity protection and that the traffic situation resulting from the development was a “slap in the face” for the climate change mitigation policies espoused by Medway Council. She asked if the developers could provide a stronger case (for approval) as she felt the existing submission was insufficient and that she could not support approval on the basis of the submission to date.

Cllr. Harris (1h:11m:30s) responded that Mr. Neave’s assurance on traffic was adequate. He reiterated the (imaginary) “shed build” threat and that the submission of the applicants was “exceptional”.

Cllr Etheridge (1h:13m:00s) stated that he “totally disagreed” with comments made by the Highways Officer (Mr. Neave) given his own experience of Bush Road. He also noted that the amount of waste water the proposed wine production activities would generate would be in the region of 2.5 billion litres of water per year and asked where that would be stored.

Cllr. Harris (1h:14m:35s) replied that the data was in the applicant’s submission.

Cllr Etheridge (1h:14m:00s) said that data did not indicate a volume of 2,5 billion litres (Note: In the Supplementary Agenda note, Southern Water has already indicated that current sewer capacity was inadequate to handle the applicant’s proposed volume of waste). Cllr Etheridge queried the traffic volume data (Mr Neave went to check the data). He asked about the Energy Centre, and where the other 50% of the winery’s energy use was coming from in the light of climate change criteria and pointed out that no provision has been made for GSHPs or solar energy. Cllr Etheridge also highlighted the anti-social nature of late night traffic noise associated with the winery, asked how such noise could be regarded as acceptable and wanted confirmation that the travel plans would be re-examined in the light of this.

Cllr. Harris (1h:17m:30s) replied that the applicant had adequately considered the energy situation of the building and once more reiterated the (imaginary) “shed build” threat.

Cllr. Etheridge (1h:18m:23s) retorted that he was happy to let the applicant build their wine processing plant as a permitted agricultural development without a restaurant and that he would not be supporting approval of this application.

Cllr. Curry (1h.18m.50s) noted that Gravesham had refused an application to build a winery in Luddesdown and asked what basis that refusal was made upon.

Cllr, Harris (1h.19m.20s) replied that application was not made by Vineyard Farms and that he didn’t know why it was refused. (Update: it was not refused: the applicant withdrew it after GBC made it clear they would not support it due to green belt protection and traffic concerns. GBC seem to take a totally different stance to MBC...).

Cllr. Curry (1h.20m.00s) said it would be useful to know why Gravesham refused a winery application. He went on to state that the application was not for an agricultural building, which could just be built without formal planning permission as a permitted development. It is, in fact, for a restaurant, visitor’s centre, tourist attraction etc. He asked why are we constantly being told otherwise? Cllr. Curry also asked why the conditional £80K funding of the additional traffic plan was going to take place after approval, not before?

Cllr, Harris (1h.21m.40s) replied that Gravesham’s refusal of a winery application was based on the industrial nature of the proposals, but such a reason to know was not necessary (which contradicted his above statement). He also replied that tourism is normal for wineries, and that the restaurant etc. wouldn’t exist were it not for the wine manufacturing facility.

Mr. Neave (Transport) replied to Cllr. Ethridge’s earlier question re. visitor numbers and anti-social traffic noise and stated some numbers. (Note: the anti-social traffic noise query was not addressed). He also replied to Cllr. Curry’s question and stated that the traffic plan funding would be split between work occurring both before and after approval.

Cllr. Curry (1h.25m.00s) asked how that would work and that we don’t yet have the data needed to make a decision.

Mr. Neave replied (1h.25m.55s) that the traffic plan was for the operational phase post-approval and would give the Parish Council a chance to input into any further mitigation measures (Note: AFTER approval is given!)

Cllr. Thorn asked for clarification of the traffic data and said that he thought it was all a bit of a “smoke-screen”.

Mr. Neave replied (1h.27m.25s) and provided a measure of clarification.

Cllr. Harris (1h:28m:00h) gave the reasons for Gravesham’s refusal of a winery application. It was due to the industrial appearance of the building, green belt impact, access, etc.

Cllr. Hubbard (1h:29m:00h) stated that he felt that the application was a “trophy” application, aimed purely at winning awards. He wanted to know what conversations were had with the developer about excluding the non-agricultural elements (visitor’s centre, restaurant etc) of the design from the submission, which would greatly reduce the traffic impact. He noted that a site visit was really required, so that councillors could see for themselves the “country lane” nature of Bush Road and its traffic situation.

Cllr. Harris (1h:32m:55s) replied that he was satisfied that these concerns had been adequately addressed and that the developers had already reacted to concerns.

Cllr. Potter (1h:34m:30s) suggested that permitted development rights should be removed from the applicants once approval had been granted, to stop them building ugly but permitted agricultural sheds in addition to their winery.

Cllr. Harris (1h:35m:25s) replied that it would be a good condition to add post-approval.

Cllr. Gulvin (1h:36m:10s) asked for clarification of what is and isn’t “permitted development”. He stated that he did not accept the argument that wine growing and wine manufacturing had to be on the same site and wanted to know if traffic implications for such an option had been considered, though he felt it would be worse.  Would the building happen anyway with no visitor centre? Would we wind up with an industrial building otherwise?

Cllr. Harris (1h:38m:55s) replied that a winery without the restaurant etc. would be a permitted development and would not require planning permission and that, yes, an offsite winery would generate traffic (Note: that option has not been considered and so no actual data is available for that assertion.)

Cllr. Brown (1h:39m:45s) asked about the impact of permitted development (rather than a design subject to approval by the Planning Committee) upon “biodiversity.”

Cllr. Harris (1h:41m:05s) replied that should Vineyard Farms not be granted planning permission for the winery, they could go down the route of permitted development that would not be subject to planning restrictions (another reiteration of the “shed threat”).

Cllr. Buckwell (Chairman) opened the debate stage of the meeting (1h:42m:00s)

Cllr. Tranter said (at great length) that he had concerns about the amount of detail upon landscaping, and upon the impact upon the local community in terms of human activity (both those who live there and those who visit). He stated that he would like a deferral of any decision to get more data along those lines. 

Cllr Curry (1h:50m:30s) stated the proposal is clearly a mixed use development. He said he was concerned about the traffic impact and felt more information and discussion was needed, especially upon the local quality of life. He stated that he was also unaware of any assessment of the impact of tourism on the area. He stated that the Kent ANOB and Cuxton Parish Council responses to the proposals were the best he had ever seen and should be read. He also noted that “biodiversity/climate change enhancements” provided by the proposal were actually of no consequence given that the much of the applicants land already has Green Belt/SSSI status, and should not form part of any argument in favour. He noted that while many “benefits” of their scheme are being touted by the applicants, it was unclear that there were any for the local community. Does Cuxton actually need the employment opportunities? He stated that the scheme detracted from the ANOB. He called out the “threat” of permitted development and asked if the applicants were actually making that threat. He did not feel that they were. He stated that the integrity of the ANOB was hugely important and that the impact upon the local community was hugely important and he felt that the development was not bringing any advantages.  He said he could not support approval of the plans.

Although the question phase of the meeting was over, Cllr. Harris was permitted to state his disagreement with Cllr Curry’s observations (1h:59m.40s). He repeated his praise for the submission and that all of the information Cllr. Curry needed was in there (implying that Cllr. Curry hadn’t read it) and that tourism brings a lot to Medway. He stated that if any councillor was unhappy with the amount of information provided by the applicants, he would be happy to defer the decision to allow them to provide more.

Cllr. McDonald (2h:02m:10s) stated that he would like to conduct a site visit given so many unanswered questions. He felt that more information would be needed, otherwise he was minded to refuse the application. He said he would like to defer the decision to get more information from the developers and for councillors to see the area for themselves.

Cllr. Buckwell agreed (2h.04m.30s).

Cllr. Etheridge (2h:05m:00s) said he did not believe anything he had heard around traffic movements and supported deferral and a site meeting.

Cllr. Hubbard (2h:06m.50s) said he had no problem with a wine processing operation in the area but that the development does not respect the villagers of Cuxton because of the traffic. He said that the absence of the “add-ons” (restaurant, visitors centre etc) and an off-site location for the bottling operation would solve the traffic issues and would meet the needs of a wine-making business model. He wanted to know how the developers could achieve that. He favoured a deferral and a site visit, with a more respectful approach to the community from the developer.

Cllr. Curry (2h:12m:50s) asked Cllr. Harris that if permitted development were to proceed would planning permission be needed for access from Bush Road. Cllr, Harris admitted that the developer had never threatened to go down that route, and that access would require planning permission.

It was then agreed to defer the decision to allow further presentations by the developer and a fact-finding site visit (2h:14m:30s). 

Meeting closed.

Backenden Hill...

Some views from up on the hills above Warren Road...

It looks like snow on the fields but it is chalk. Our old friends Vineyard Farms are now renting these fields on a long-term basis and have deep-ploughed them, as they have right the way across Cuxton and Luddesdown.

No more wildflowers or the diversity of arable crops for these fields to look forward to any more, alas, just sterile, boring vines...

Vanished Cuxton - Old Post Office Row...

Old Post Office Row in 1959, and how the area appears now...

Opposite the entrance to the Cuxton Scout hall in Bush Road once stood Old Post Office Row. I’m not quite sure when it was built, although it is thought to date back to the 17th century. It does not appear on the (rather crude and inaccurate) Andrews, Jury and Herbert map of the Cuxton area in 1769, but is clearly shown on the (unpublished – held in the British Museum) OS map of 1789. 

Map of Cuxton, 1769...

Map of Cuxton, 1789, with Post Office Row arrowed...

As its name suggests, the Row was home to Cuxton’s post office until the local postal service relocated, (sometime in the 1890s) to the cottage on Bush Road that is now No. 35.

No. 35 Bush Road, c. 1900 and 1971. 

Built in around 1840, long before the houses either side of it, 35 Bush Road was home to Cuxton's Post Office until around 1900. The lady in the picture above may possibly be Flora Chalklen, wife of Daniel Chalklen, whom Kelly's Directory lists as "grocer and draper at the post office" in 1900.

The Post Office business then subsequently moved a couple of doors down to the shop (no. 39) on the corner of Bush Road (then known as Cuxton Street) and May Street (then known as Jupp Street), which was built around then.

Percy Chalklen and his fiance, Elsie Camber, outside of the "new" Bush Road Post Office, c.1913...

Percy Chalklen (above) was the son of postmaster Daniel Chalken, and acted as the telegram boy. Daniel's other son, David, was the postman. 

Percy was a keen photographer and his pictures of Cuxton were published as postcards and sold in the post office. and as such form an invaluable record of how Cuxton was in the early 20th century. Percy sadly lost his life late in World War One.

The Old Post Office Row buildings were of considerable architectural quality. The Post office building, right on the main road, had a fine panelled room at the front. Another had an attractive eighteenth century staircase. 

Old Post Office Row, c.1900. The post box can be seen, set in the wall on the right...

c.1910. Note the additional side doors, suggesting that the building had been subdivided.

The PO row buildings, c.1950. Note the extension and loss of the loft window...

Although they had fallen somewhat into disrepair by the 1960s, a 1962 report by the SPAB (Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings) stated that “all were worthy of preservation”. 

Needless to say, that was way too much like hard work for the local municipal council and so the Old Post Office Row was demolished in 1963. The existing bungalows were built some years later (late seventies I think).

Same view as the 1910 one above, 1973. Note how much wider Bush Road is...!

The Post Office itself stayed at 39 Bush Road (with Mrs. E, Swaisland as postmistress) until it moved, in around 1969, over to the row of shops that were built opposite the end of Wood Street in the early 1960s. Curiously the then-postmaster, Mr. Bovis, got to occupy a corner of Fry's butcher's shop, which seemed an odd mix of businesses. The post office counter remained in the butcher's shop (latterly run by G.M. Robinson) right up until around 2012, until the butchers finally closed and the Post Office had the shop to itself.

Bush Road shops, 1970. The post office was then at No. 68, sharing with Fry's the butchers (last shop on the left)...

In December 2014 it was subjected to an armed robbery, with a terrified shop worker tied up and threatened with a gun. The culprits were never caught. After a few months it reopened, but the lovely folk who ran it rather lost heart (not surprisingly). It soldiered on as a rather bleak, fortified counter until it finally closed for good in December 2019, with the Post Office business moving next door to No. 66 to become part of what is now the "Best One" store. The former butchers/post office has stood forlorn and empty since then. 

The lady who lives above the vacant shop still does the village proud by putting out lots of potted flowers outside it during the summer months, which brightens up that otherwise rather bleak corner of the parade no end.

Floral display outside the empty Post Office, August 2021...

Reference:

1)  Cuxton: A Kentish Village by Derek Church (published by Arthur J Cassell Ltd, 1976, ISBN 0 903253 12 7), Chapter 6, p 76.

Lest We Forget...

WW1 memorial bench, Cuxton church...

Behind the graveyard of Cuxton Church is a rather splendid memorial bench (built by Steve Portchmouth, who carved the Brockles seat) bearing the names of the 14 young men from the village who died in the First World War, each set in a carved poppy on the bench back-rest. The bench was installed by volunteers in November 2018, along with an information board that gives a few details about each of the fallen.

WW1 memorial, Cuxton church, information board...

"Cuxton Rocks": painted pebbles left by the memorial boards...

(As of October 2021 they have been joined by another board and memorial carving - also by Steve Porchmouth - commemorating the five men from Cuxton who lost their lives in the Second World War.)

WW2 memorials, Cuxton Church...

One name on the WW1 memorial caught my eye – that of Percy William Chalklen. He features in a locally well-known and rather poignant photograph from 1913 (and which features on the back cover of Derek Church’s book – Cuxton: a Kentish Village), shown below...

Percy Chalklen and Elsie Camber outside of Cuxton Post Office, 1913...

Percy and his young fiancé, Elsie Camber, both aged 21, are shown sitting on their bikes outside of Percy’s mum and dad’s post office and general store on the corner of May Street and Cuxton Street (now Bush Road – the shops are now both hairdressers), where Percy worked as an assistant greengrocer and as the local "telegram boy". Percy and Elsie married in March 1915 and lived around the corner from the shop, in May Street, before Percy joined the Kent Cyclists Regiment to serve his country in WW1.

The photograph shows Percy as a vital, strikingly handsome chap, with a pretty young fiancé and his whole life ahead him. Undoubtedly just like countless others, whose promising lives were soon to be cut short by the pointless slaughter of war.

Percy was killed in action at Flanders on 21^st August 1918. He was 25.

Elsie got married again in December 1921, to Noble Edgar (“Ted”) Allcorn.

Ted played the organ at the church and was a keen bell-ringer. By all accounts he was a likeable and popular man, one who is still fondly remembered by some of the church bell-ringing team, even today. One of them told me about the time Ted’s trousers fell down whilst ringing the bells for a church service! His fellow ringers did not allow him to forget this, leaving a short length of rope in the tower for him, with a label on it saying “For Emergency Use”…

Elsie and Ted lived in Cuxton (latterly in William Road) until Elsie passed away in 1981, aged 89. Ted died in 1989, aged 92. They are buried together in the Cuxton church graveyard. A picture of their gravestone is shown below...

Elsie and Ted Allcorn's grave, Cuxton churchyard...

A small tale of small lives, perhaps, but tales like this matter. They show us that sacrifice, horror and grief inevitably gives way to stability, happiness and laughter, albeit perhaps not universally and perhaps not for long. But hopefully the latter conditions of the current cycle of human history will remain with us, the lucky ones, for a while yet.

Wreaths laid at the memorial plaques in Cuxton Church, Remembrance Sunday 2021.
Laid by (L to R) the Royal Engineers Professional Engineering Wing, Cuxton Parish Council
and the Cuxton and Halling Girl Guides... 

References:

1.    Cuxton: A Kentish Village by Derek Church (published by Arthur J Cassell Ltd, 1976, ISBN 0 903253 12 7), frontispiece text

2.    FreeBMD Civil Registration Index

3.    WW1 Information Board behind Cuxton Church

4.    Cuxton and Halling Church Magazine October 2013.

Note: The magazine states that Elsie was the wife of another of the Cuxton WW1 fallen, Frederick Pooley, before she remarried. A search of the civil registration index of marriages suggests that this is incorrect, and the story is as I have told it above.

Beating the Bounds of Cuxton Parish - revisited...

(For those interested in a more detailed history of the "beating of the bounds at Cuxton", I have now given the subject its own blog page - click on the link given or go to the home page and access it from the right-hand side bar under "pages)...

Given that the last “beating” of the Cuxton Parish boundary took place in October 2018, I recently decided to undertake my own “perambulation” of the Cuxton parish boundary this year. In his book, “Cuxton: a Kentish Village”, local historian Derek Church described his own reconnaissance undertaken back in the early seventies, and I thought it would be interesting to see how things had changed.

Beating the Bounds - the party of 1957 at Whorne's Place...

I started my journey at Whorne’s Place on the Rochester Road, as did the party for the 1957 perambulation. Scratched into the brickwork on the wall to the left of the storehouse backing on to the road is an arrow, which serves as one of the boundary markers. One of Derek Church’s old photos from 1960 shows this clearly, as well as the date “1895” and the initials “AP”. 

Marker at Whorne's Place, 1960...

Whilst the arrow is still visible, the passage of another 60 years (with corrosion assisted by today’s modern traffic pollution, no doubt) has seen the date inscription badly eroded, although it is still just about visible.

Crossing the road, I turned up the public footpath past Woodway Cottage and on towards the top of Church Hill. This is now a path fraught with some danger, as the adjacent field is often occupied by two particularly large black horses (and their offspring) of dubious temperament that have been known to kick or bite passers-by (as one unfortunate member of the Cuxton Countryside Group found out a few years back). Fortunately, most of the path now has a high chain-link fence protecting passers-by from unwanted equine attention. The last 200 yards or so are still only sectioned off with tape however and of course, the horses were present in this area but on this occasion they seemed to be well-behaved. Nevertheless, it was with a sense of relief that I reached the top of Church Hill and the farm gate stile.

The parish boundary itself runs through Bore’s Hole, the now-abandoned chalk pit that fed the Trenchman and Weekes cement works that used to be behind Whorne’s Place. The works shut down in the 1920s and the chimneys were demolished in 1951.  

By the gate there is a stone marked “T.W” and dated 1900, which undoubtedly stands for Trenchman & Weekes and probably marks the edge of what used to be their land boundary. From here, I took the path through May’s Wood to the left of the main track, and followed it westwards towards the pit edge. The path follows the parish boundary fairly closely at this point.

Trees do not make for enduring markers and indeed, the “huge beech tree just in May’s Wood above the pit edge” referred to by Mr. Church had long since gone. I found the first boundary marker tree further up, close to the junction with the path that leads down to the east of Dean Valley. The earliest date on it is 1990, suggesting that the original had indeed blown over in the storm of 1987.

May's Wood, boundary marker tree...

From there, I carried on along the track until it rejoined the main path. Interestingly, Derek Church notes an old yew tree mentioned as a boundary marker in 1796, located in “Warren Scrubs” and on the slope above Warren House just before the track rejoins the main path there are indeed several splendid old yew trees. Whether any of these are the 1796 one or not (or indeed, the same one that Derek Church recalls finding) is difficult to say. There is also a nice beech tree with them that would make a good boundary marker. 

Ancient yew on the parish boundary, "Warren Scrubs"...

After a short distance, just before the crossroads of the Warren Hill/Ridgeway/North Down’s Way tracks, the parish boundary dips down across Dean Valley. Ordnance Survey maps indicate a boundary stone on the main track at this point, but I could not find it.  There are a couple of mature beech trees in the immediate area that serve as good references points, however. Turning right at the crossroads off the main track, I followed the North Downs Way down the steps and through the gate. The parish boundary runs across Dean Valley from a point just to the east of the gate at the bottom of the steps, carries on past the eastern edge of the pond and then up and across North Wood.

Derek Church gives the impression that it used to be possible to track directly across the valley, following the parish boundary directly into North Wood, but the valley has since been fenced off. I therefore carried on following the North Downs way that runs to the west of Dean Farm, crossing the valley and turning left (ducking under the chain) along the path westwards through North Wood. The Parish boundary intersects the westward track through North Wood at a point just after where the first set of overhead power lines cross – there is a pylon right by the track.

Mr. Church noted that there was a boundary-marking yew on the southern edge of North Wood bearing the markings “C 1957, 1966”. I did head east off of the main track in an attempt to find this and succeeded in getting to the boundary fence, but I could not find the tree mentioned. The area is pretty much overgrown with brambles and is not readily accessible.

Derek Church stated that “just to the west of the (main) track was a large hornbeam marked C 1948 and C 1966”. Exactly on the boundary (just to the west of the track as described) are the ruins of a big tree that looked like it had suffered a lightning strike and this may have been the tree that Mr. Church referred to. I certainly couldn’t find any mature hornbeams that are still standing in the area.

Burnt/dead tree, right on the parish boundary in North Wood...

There is, however, a magnificent beech just to the east of the dead tree and it would be fitting to adopt this as a boundary marker in the absence of any others in the area.

Beech close to parish boundary, North Wood...

Mr. Church says that he dropped down the slope from there to the bottom of Bush Valley, but these days the brambles and undergrowth would make this a slow and difficult transit, so I therefore stuck on the main track. The main path runs to the south of the parish boundary, the latter meeting the edge of the woods on the south-eastern corner of Bush Valley and following the fence line across the valley before turning north into Bushy Wood.

The path through North Wood comes out close to the pylons. I crossed under the overhead wires and then took the track off on the right which leads down towards the public footpath NS214, which itself crosses the valley directly up to Luddesdown. Instead of taking the NS214, however, I turned right, down the farm track towards the bottom of Bush Valley until I reached the pylon track again. Making use of the clearing underneath, I followed the slope down to the gate at the bottom and ducked under the gap at the side.

The Ordnance survey map shows a line of boundary stones running along the southern edge of Bush Valley and indeed, I found two on the eastern side of the valley just inside the fence opposite the pheasant pen. At the bottom of Bush valley, the gate into the woods is locked shut and has been festooned with oh so friendly and picturesque barbed wire to keep the local peasantry at bay... 

Gate, bottom of Bush Valley on the parish boundary...

The OS map indicates a marker stone here but I could not find it: perhaps it got grubbed up when the gate post was put in. Further up on the western side of the valley, I did succeed in finding another four marker stones, again all just inside the fence line. They are quite small (about six inches square and maybe nine inches tall) and are marked “HA” on the south-facing side. 

Boundary marker stones, southern edge of Bush Valley...

It’s worth noting that there are some concrete stones marked “H.A” (note the dot between the H and the A) further up the valley, towards White Pit in Halling. These are much larger than the parish boundary markers and are similar in style to the aforementioned Trenchman and Weekes stone up by Bores Hole. These latter stones are undoubtedly property boundary markers for Hilton and Anderson, the old cement company that used to work White Pit (hence the H.A) whereas the HA on the parish boundary markers probably just stands for HAlling, which shares the boundary with Cuxton at this point.

From the uppermost of the western marker stones, I scrambled eastwards up the bank through some scraggy brambles until I got onto the public footpath NS214, and then followed that up the hill into Bushy Wood. The NS214 meanders upwards and north-westwards for a bit and at a clearing by the junction of the Luddesdown-bound NS214 with a track leading northwards towards Clarkes Wood, I found a hornbeam that serves as another marker tree. 

Bushy Wood - boundary marker Hornbeam with dates 1966 - 2018...

This bore dates back to 1990 on one side, but on the other side the dates went back to 1966. Derek Church refers to a “hornbeam clearly marked C 1966” in the area and I think this must be the same tree.

Taking the northwards farm track from the junction, the row of large yew trees he also mentioned were evident, however, so I knew I must be on the right path.

Yews on parish boundary, Bushy Wood...

The track opens out to a clearing above which the HV pylon cables run. Walking over to the edge of Clarke’s Wood, the path continues onwards. Once in the woods I followed the path downwards and then took a right turn just before the path dipped steeply, about 100 yards before what I think is one of the biggest beech trees I have ever seen. After a while, I found the large marker beech that I photographed on my 2018 tour. 

Beech, boundary marker, Clarke's Wood...

This is the only remaining “original” marker tree as far as I know, bearing dates right back to 1930. Derek Church refers to a tree marked in 1948, 1957 and 1966 that he could not find and I think this might be the tree he missed, although it does not have the 1966 date. 

The tree does lie somewhat to the east of the parish boundary and perhaps this is why Mr. Church (a keen scout leader with undoubtedly prodigious orienteering skills) missed it. (I cheat, by the way, and use a hand-held sat-nav…)

Mr. Church mentioned another beech in Clarke’s Wood marked “C 1966”, which suggests that the beech described above was missed out by the 1966 bound-beating team and another was marked up instead. 

There are so many venerable beech trees in the area that I was satisfied to have found the one marker tree that I did, but I would need to do a more intensive search to find the “missing” 1966 tree, which I am sure is still there.  Incidentally, there is a splendid old hornbeam just down the track from the marker beech tree that is much nearer the parish boundary and would make a good marker tree.

I made my way northwards, passing a row of four yew trees that sit exactly on the parish boundary and also another large beech, unmarked, but again, right on the boundary. 

Row of yews on parish boundary, border of Clarkes/Red Wood...

Eventually the track leads out on to the field at the eastern edge of Red Wood, close to the parish boundary. Following the parish boundary northwards towards Warren House involved a short crossing over a newly-ploughed field, which, thanks to the recent wet weather, was extremely hard going.

View towards Warren House from the parish boundary at Red Wood...

Eventually, and with about three inches of heavy brown mud clinging to the bottom of my boots, I made it to the green just below Warren House. 

In the past, it has been traditional for refreshments to be served to the perambulators at this point, but I had to make do with a quick swig from my water bottle to celebrate leaving Vineyard Farms’ land, before going through the little gate and starting up towards the railway tunnel I always call the “Icicle Arch”.

The "Icicle" arch, February 2021...

Once through the tunnel, the old path that runs up the hill has long been fenced off for some reason and has become overgrown. Instead, I had to slog alongside it by walking through the long, wet grass at the edge of the adjacent field. Fortunately the barbed-wire fence at the top had fallen down and I was able to get on the Cobham track, dropping down the hill slightly and going through the Plotlands gate on the left. I headed up the hill again slightly before taking a track on the right, leading northwards up and across Warren Plain that runs slightly west of the parish boundary.

I took a slight detour off the path eastwards towards the Plantlife gate where a sign says that they are allegedly re-establishing some “chalk grassland”. Nearby is a tree graveyard where several large beech trees have blown over, presumably in the great 1987 storm. One of these fallen trees was an original marker, now lying on its side with its roots forlornly levered out of the ground. Moss now obscures a lot of the dates on the stricken trunk and it is difficult to see how far back they go, though dates back to “1966” are visible. 

Fallen beech marker tree, Plotlands. Another tree behind it has been adopted, as can be seen above...

Derek Church refers to a tree in this area marked “C 1966” and I think the fallen tree must be the same one. There is a newly adopted beech tree right behind it though, bearing dates from 1990 onwards. Curiously, the most recent 2015 and 2018 perambulations have been missed out.

Beech marker on Plotlands, parish boundary...

Returning to the main track, I continued up the hill. On the left in a clearing there is a single large beech, right on the parish boundary, bearing the Cuxton “C” and the dates 1983, 1985 and 2018. It seems the earlier tree down the hill is sometimes overlooked for some reason.

Beech, marker tree, Warren Plain...

Derek Church mentioned a beech tree on Williams Hill that bore the markings “C 1966, C 1957 and C 1911”. I spent some time looking for such a tree but could not find it. Whether it still stands or was a victim of the 1987 storm, I don’t know.

Turning right up the track just inside the park fence leads to an old hornbeam located by a gate, which bears perambulation marks back to 1990.  Again, this suggests a nearby marker tree had gone over in the ’87 storm.

Hornbeam, marker tree, Williams Hill...

The track from William’s Hill eventually levels out just behind and to the east of the Mausoleum. Following the track eastwards that runs just outside of the Cobham park fence leads to the top edge of Birch Wood and (just down the hill a short way) the remains of the Toe Memorial (the story of which is told here). This stands very close to the south of the parish boundary and itself is a good “marker”.

Heading back up the hill and onto the main Cobham path, I did find a beech off the track on the left just before Five Throws corner, not marked with a “C” but bearing the year 2018, although this seems to be too far north (by about 120m) to be a boundary marker.

Beech, Cobham trail, marked 2018.  Marker tree..?

At Five Throws there is also another tree marked “C 1930” but with no other dates.  

Hornbeam, Five Throws...

Just to the east of Five Throws, the parish boundary comes up from the south-west to join the Cobham track for a while. There is a stand of hornbeams at this point, which looked rather splendid in their autumn colours, but are not marked in any way.  Perhaps one of them should be.  

Further down, there is a stand of chestnuts and hornbeams (again, unmarked) showing the place where the parish boundary leaves the Cobham trail and heads north-east to cross the A2.

At the junction of the main path by the footbridge and tunnel to Albatross Road in Strood under the Hi-Speed rail link, there is a marker tree (hornbeam) bearing dates back to 1990. 

Hornbeam, Albatross Way junction on Cobham trail...

This tree stands about 100m east of the actual parish boundary, which by now follows the northern edge of the M2, across the A228 and down to the river.

I had no intention of crossing into darkest Strood to find out if the parish boundary could be tracked on that side. Instead, I followed the path next to high-speed railway track down the towards the Ranscombe reserve car park on Sundridge Hill.

I could have walked down to the main road and along to the business park, picking up the track that leads back under the bridge, around the back of the gypsy encampment and through the underpass back to the station. That, however, is quite a horrible walk, with much of the latter bit of that route obstructed by dumped rubbish and overgrown with brambles.

Given that (1) in reality, the parish boundary runs along the middle of the river from the A2 bridge until Whorne’s Place and (2), I was knackered, I satisfied myself with the view of the river as seen from Ranscombe just above the car park. I then headed to the White Hart via Longhoes, across the railway crossing and down Pebble Lane (just as Derek Church says he did fifty years ago) for a well-deserved pint or three, before completing the loop up Rochester Road to Whorne’s Place.

Although it actually lies some 320m to the north-west of the parish boundary (which, as mentioned earlier, lies in the middle of the river at this point) I have included the White Hart as the 30th and final point on my own personal list and map of 30 parish boundary markers, as not only is the building of considerable local historical interest, but it is also the place where all Cuxton Parish boundary perambulations normally finish – and no walking map is complete without a pub on it, in my own opinion!

The White Hart, now and 100 years ago: where all boundary perambulations finish...

My FitBit gadget told me that I had completed 8.2 miles at this point, which had taken me around 8 hours, although I did spend a fair bit of time looking for markers that were hard to find, weren’t there or were hiding from me (not logged on the FitBit, which I paused when going “off-piste”…).

It is quite a slog, up and down the valley four times in all and over some quite tough terrain, but I reckon the “perambulation” could be comfortably done by a group in 5-6 hours.

As might be expected, things have obviously changed since Derek Church undertook his own parish boundary explorations in the late sixties/early seventies. Access to woodlands is harder as there are a lot more locked gates and barbed-wire fencing: it seems landowners are (understandably) getting more and more protective of their land. It also seems that a lot of the woodlands and paths in the "care" of Vineyard Farms Ltd. are being sadly neglected these days, as indeed is most of the land (including their vineyards) under their ownership. Many old trees were also lost in the great storm of October 1987. 

There may also be more "modern" markers that I did not find, along with some older ones that may still be around but (so far) have eluded me. The parish boundary walk-around is nevertheless an interesting and enjoyable challenge, and I have no doubt that a "formal" perambulation will be organised soon.

References:

1)   Cuxton: A Kentish Village by Derek Church (published by Arthur J Cassell Ltd, 1976, ISBN 0 903253 12 7), Chapter 2, pp 11-19.