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
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
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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment