Tuesday, 22 February 2022

Lost Livelihoods: Smelt Fishing...

Fishing for smelt at Whornes Place, c.1910. The Halling Lime and Cement (Trechman and Weekes)  works is on the left, with the
Wickham Cement Works (Martin Earles) at Strood in the centre background. Tingey's chalk wharf at Wouldham is on the right. 

Once upon a time a six-mile stretch of the River Medway, from the old Rochester Bridge upstream to just past Snodland, used to be of vital importance to Medway fisherman.  This was because in that short stretch of the river, smelts could be netted in vast numbers in early springtime.

The smelt (Osmerus eperlanus) is a small fish, seldom longer than about 25 cm. Their backs are an attractive olive green in colour, blending into an iridescent band on their sides fading to a silver belly. Related to salmon, smelts are ravenous predators of anything smaller than they are, their large jaws being equipped with long, needle-like teeth. Like other fish related to the salmon family, smelts leave the sea in autumn and gradually make their way up the estuaries to spawn on gravel banks in spring.

Cucumber Smelt (Osmerus eperlanus)

Sometimes called the “Cucumber Smelt” (or Sparling), the fish gives off a distinctive odour similar to that of a fresh-cut cucumber. Pleasant to the consumer though that might have been, the odour soon became cloying to the hard-working fisherman on the good days when there were thousands of smelts to be packed into boxes for transport and sale.

The fish were a gourmet dish in Victorian and Edwardian times and Medway smelts were held in particularly high esteem. In the early part of the last century, one mysterious buyer used to turn up on the river bank year after year to buy boxes of smelts straight from the boats: rumour had it that he was buying for the Royal table.

The smelt fisherman worked out of small open boats called dobles. Dobles (the name possibly an abbreviation of “double-ender”) were typically around six meters long, with a beam in excess of two meters. They were heavily-built, consisting of oak or elm planking an inch or more thick, fixed over stout sawn ribs and providing the weight needed to draw the drag nets that were used for fishing.

A doble at Whornes Place, c.1900, crewed by Harry Hill and his son Roland.

Amidships, the dobles had a characteristic feature – the “wet well”. This was a pyramidal-shaped compartment fitted across the boat with holes drilled through the boat’s bottom, to allow the water to circulate in the well and keep the catch fresh. These wells also aided the stability of the boat, strengthened the hull and also (because of the sloping sides) provided valuable stowage space for ropes, nets and other small equipment.

Although the dobles were rigged with masts and sails, these were taken down and the boats usually rowed when fishing the Medway smelt runs, called “shoots”.

The River Medway in 1910, with some smelt shoot locations indicated.

Unlike many fish, smelts moved from place to place quite unpredictably. A favourite spot may produce only a few fish on one day and yet thousands on another. The Wadhams brothers recalled one night at “Parsons Gate” at Halling during World War One when the river “boiled with fish” as they hauled their net in. Over 7,000 fish were netted in that one haul. 

It was traditional knowledge that in places upriver of Wouldham, smelts could only be caught at night (with the exception of Halling Hole). Kettle-shaped oil lamps (“pot flares”) were used to provide light for night fishing. It must have been an eerie sight to look out across the river on a misty night and see the smelt fishermen working. 

At Wouldham and Whorne’s Place, smelt could be taken day and night. Local knowledge was crucial to success and the names and locations of the “shoots” were passed down by word of mouth from father to son and from master to apprentice. Some of the names (such as “Found Out” and "Scunch") are quite intriguing and their origins are lost in time.

The sailing bawley Jubilee at Cuxton, c.1900. On the left is owner John Hill,
with his three sons Ernest, Charles and Harry and some visitors. 

At the height of the season in spring, the fishermen would group themselves into temporary partnerships of six or more. Slightly larger sailing boats, called bawleys (normally used for deeper water fishing, oyster-catching and shrimping – the name coming from the shrimp boilers many of bawleys were fitted with) were sailed upriver with two or three dobles in tow, the bawleys acting as houseboats for the fishing teams while the dobles did the actual netting of the fish.

Landing a smelt dragnet, Whornes Place c.1910...

The technique of dragnetting involved a skilful partnership of two men, one in the doble and the other working the net from the shore. The nets could be as long as 35 fathoms (65m) and about 3 fathoms deep. They must have required great skill, strength and dexterity to handle. The shore man kept track of the boat, walking along the shore and working the net around in a loop as it was fed out from the boat, so that it was in the right position to trap the fish. The rower then turned the boat in and ran it up on to shore and helped his partner pull up the net. The catch was tipped into the doble’s wet well, or straight into baskets if they were to be sold locally.

Harry and Blake Hill, emptying smelts into a basket, Whornes Place, c.1900

In a good season, a fisherman could earn up to £40 a week, earnings that would have equalled by few other trades at the time. Of course, there were bad seasons as well.

In the early part of the season, demand for smelt could push the price up to 30 shillings (£1.50) per 100, but average prices were 10 to 14 shillings per 100, dropping as low as two shillings per 100 in a glut. Sales to local people were around a shilling for 25 fish of less than prime size, but most of the smelt were boxed up and sent to Billingsgate by rail, the transport costs being borne by the fishermen.

Smelt fishing, Halling, c.1910

Smelts were fished heavily from the mid 1860s onwards, no doubt thanks to the railway giving access to London markets, although there was an absence of smelt in the 1880s that was blamed on pollution from the numerous cement works along the Medway at the time. The 1930s were also lean years and after 1945, the smelt stopped coming altogether.

Various reasons for the loss of the smelts have been put forward, but the most likely is simply that of over-fishing. Netting was permitted during the spawning season because the flavour of the fish was said to be at its best when the fish were laden with spawn or milt, but heavy fishing when the fish were at their most vulnerable proved not to be sustainable. Like many other mass spawning species, the smelt’s breeding strategy is to lay an enormous number of eggs at once, to overwhelm the predation of the eggs and hatchlings. It is also possible that the fish themselves need the stimulus to breed provided by the presence of thousands of other fish at spawning time. Either way, once the numbers fall below a certain level, the population collapses and takes a long time to recover.

And so a way of life that lasted for a hundred years faded away, probably never to return…

Reference: 

pp12-22, The Bawleymen: Fishermen and Dredgermen of the River Medway by Derek Coombe (published by Pennant Books in 1979, ISBN 0 9506413 0 8)

Sunday, 20 February 2022

The Fourth Estate...


Local media, especially dear old local click-bait "news" site KentOnLine, have been strangely quiet about the winery lately. It's not as if there is nothing going on, but then it seems that Vineyard Farms haven't quite been getting it all their own way, despite the resources (which includes Medway Council's planning department) at their disposal.

You'd think some of the stories would be worth reporting.

There was the business about Vineyard Farms putting up a national Facebook ad, begging for public backing and encouraging people to fill in a proforma that would be sent to the council as a letter of support. One can't blame them in a way. Before their ad, there were around 300 objections and only about 20 letters of support on the council's planning portal. Despite the propaganda blanket-bombing, it still seems that most people (with the exception of those working in Medway Council's planning department) aren't in favour of letting a billionaire tax exile build a concrete bunker on protected green belt land in a Kent Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (ANOB) for (his) pleasure and profit. 

Unfortunately, it seems that someone used the name and address of our local MP, Kelly Tolhurst, to submit a phoney letter of support on her behalf using the Vineyard Farms e-mail template. Kelly wasn't best pleased about that, and wrote to some of her constituents telling them so. It appears she absolutely hates the idea that anyone might think she has an opinion on it. 

Now I hear that the planning department have asked Vineyard Farms to take down their "pleeese vote for us" template, given that it has been proven beyond doubt that fake letters of support can be submitted by its use.

You'd think that a funny little story about "democracy" (and its abuse) like that would be worth reporting, wouldn't you?

Perhaps a local reporter might also wonder about the curious silence of said MP, Kelly Tolhurst, on the issue of the winery development. After all, Kelly was quick to support Hoo villagers in their campaign to prevent the development of the old Deangate Ride golf course, and yet she has tied herself in knots trying to avoid a public stance on the far more damaging development that is the Upper Bush winery.

You'd think a curious local press reporter would want to know why.  

Maybe such a reporter would even go the trouble of finding out what Kelly Tolhurst does for the £15,000's-worth of donations her office received in 2021 from a mysterious association called Businessfore - other than to attend a Christmas party hosted by them at the House of Lords where she had a cosy chat with the bosses of a Businessfore client, a civil engineering contracting company called the VGC Group (check out their Facebook page and put "Tolhurst" in the search bar...).

It's the sort of thing you'd think a keen reporter would be swarming all over.

Especially funny is the protest web page that sprung up as a repost to the VF Facebook advertising campaign. Rather cheekily, the protest group bagged the kentishwinevault.com domain name, which the Vineyard Farms PR team had rather carelessly left unclaimed. Now, if you type "Kentish Wine Vault" into any Microsoft search engine (e.g. Edge or Bing), the first site that comes up is the protest site rather than VF's one for the Kentish Wine Vault (Google is a bit clunky and has some catching up to do, I'm told).  Apparently, ".com" outranks ".co.uk" in search engine preferences (again, so I'm told: IT isn't my "thing") and so the protestors, despite not having zillions of pounds and a PR team to help them, have managed to make Vineyard Farms look a bit silly.

Worth a few tongue-in-cheek lines in the local rag, maybe? Nah. Zip.

Then there's the more serious business of Medway Council pre-empting the result of the scheduled planning committee meeting of March 9th to approve or reject the winery scheme, giving the impression that it is already a done deal.

What faith can anyone have in the planning process when Medway Council boasts that it will “soon be home” to the KWV in its vainglorious bid for city status (see p.16) weeks before the application is actually up for approval?

Extract from Medway Council's 2022 city status bid, p16, published January 2022

This is in addition to Medway Council using Vineyard Farms own propaganda to publicise the development on the council web page. You'd think something like all this would be worth a few lines in the local press, wouldn't you?

But then our "local democracy reporter" (and as a Cuxton lass, she certainly is local) has recently been exercising her own democratic rights, so it seems. Indeed, she has apparently filled in the Vineyard Farms dodgy template and sent in her letter of support for the winery to the council (although with the VF template, who knows if it really was her?). Good for her (if she has). Last time I looked, objections still outnumbered letters of support by three to one, even with Vineyard Farms' Facebook begging letter, so VF need every bit of support they can get. A tame journalist in their camp would be very welcome, I guess. 

Quite what that may do to any pretence of unbiased reporting on the winery development by KOL and its sister "dead-tree" news outlets is open to debate, of course.

"News You Can Trust" says KOL.  Yeah, right...

Update;  Wow, fame at last.  Seems the mighty KentOnline didn't think much of this tiny little mickey-take and have taken a break from attacking Kent's only Labour MP (ironically as a result of a hostile blog post) to turn their guns on little old me instead. They are even accusing me of libel, though I can't quite see what is libellous about anything I've written here. It certainly wasn't the intent. Heavy-handed and not very funny, maybe, but libellous? 

Thanks for the publicity, though. I really am a nobody and it seems kind of pathetic that KOL feel a need to go after a tiny dissenting squeak such as mine. Very few people read what I write but thanks to KOL, maybe they will now. 

This was just a little photo-blog to celebrate local history and wild-life. The advent of the winery and the side-stepping of green belt protections to enable its planning and likely construction has really upset a lot of folks who don't have a voice, so I've tried to use this obscure platform to argue back. Seems some people don't like that. It gets me down that those with power and influence seem to be all in favour of this development, despite it flying in the face of national planning guidelines designed to protect green belt land.

Still, I do owe our local democracy reporter an apology. It seems that she too is indeed a victim of the fake support letter scam I mentioned above (so she says), although I did indicate that I thought that may be the case.

So I'm sorry if I have impugned the fearless impartiality of our local democracy reporter, and she and her chums at KOL are completely entitled to use their much bigger media reach to have a sneer back at me. Which they have done. 


Tuesday, 15 February 2022

Hello and Welcome...

What we will be losing if Vineyard Farms get their way: Barrow Hill, July 2021...

Hello. I’m guessing the probable reason you are reading this right now is that the Kentish Wine Vault protest web-site home page has sent you here.

I’m very proud that the protest group has decided that some of my output on this topic is worth reading. I’m also proud to have contributed to some of the other documents referenced on the home page.

I love the local area of Cuxton and Halling, its countryside, its wildlife and its history.  I think my little blog, which I’ve kept for the past five years or so, will give you a flavour of the beauty and tranquillity of the place.

Silver-Washed Fritillary, Bushy Wood, just to the south of the land Vineyard Farms want to build on...

It’s one of the few areas of Medway to have avoided the concrete hammer of greedy developers. Indeed, less than 5% of Medway is designated as “green belt” land. Bush Valley and its surrounding ancient woodlands are also classed as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which indeed they are.

This is a crowded part of the world. We need unspoiled areas like this where we can get away from each other and enjoy the simple pleasure of walking in quiet countryside.

What Luddesdown valley used to look like before the vineyard...

The recent Coronavirus lock-downs showed the value of such places. They help keep us sane.

So I am saddened and upset that Medway Council’s Planning department have decided to give the green light to Vineyard Farms for this development, to be sited on Barrow Hill overlooking Upper Bush.  Fortunately, the final decision still gets to be made by the council's planning committee on March 9th.

I have been following the impact of Vineyard Farms upon the local environment for the past three years and it makes grim reading if, like me, you love the land and its wildlife.

Here are links to the story as it has evolved so far:

It all started when Vineyard Farms Ltd. first bought Court and Brookers Farm in 2019. I wrote about my first impressions of that…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-grapes-of-wealth.html

Luddesdown valley, late evening, February 2019...

Very soon after, we began to get a taste of things to come. First, there was the brutal coppicing of local SSSI woodland…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2019/04/stonyfield-wood.html

Coppicing or clearance...?

…and the scouring of hundreds of acres of formerly fertile arable farmland, the ploughing up of ancient footpaths and the crude flailing of associated hedgerows…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2019/04/holly-hill-to-luddesdowne-moonscape.html

Vineyard Farms treatment of Luddesdown valley, Spring 2019...

There was a brief respite, where the wildlife returned for one last showing…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2019/10/an-organic-interlude.html

A last farewell...

…but the “weeds” were soon grubbed up and next spring, the valley assumed a forlorn, silent and neglected appearance…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2020/06/luddesdown-vineyard.html

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/05/to-luddesdown.html

Bare soil still visible after two years...

Then I heard that Vineyard Farms (owned by Mark Dixon, off-shore billionaire tax exile and hobby-farmer-cum-land speculator) had bought Bush Farm at Cuxton as well. He wasted no time, promptly churning that up as well, though at first not as destructively as at Luddesdown…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2020/05/vines-and-vandalism.html

Bush Valley gets the Vineyard Farms makeover...

I thought perhaps they had learned their lesson at Luddesdown, but then I began to suspect that bigger plans were afoot…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/04/something-wicked-this-way-comes.html

Soil sampling on Barrow Hill, pre-construction...

Sure enough, all soon became clear…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-grapes-of-wealth-revisited.html

Mark Dixon, the owner of Vineyard Farms, puts his spell on Medway Council's Planning Department...

Then we finally got to see the plans. Beneath the glossy “ooh, look, it’s Lord Foster, isn't it all wonderful?” propaganda, the desperate “smoke-and-mirrors” nature of them was all too apparent. Most striking was the outrageous pretence that a £30m restaurant, wine bar, visitors centre (with a wine factory almost incidentally tucked away in the basement) could be called an "agricultural building" (just like, say, a barn or a cow shed) so that planning prohibitions of such developments on green-belt land could be side-stepped…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/reasons-to-be-objectionable-part-1.html

Just another £30m farm shop, just like wot you'd get on any farm, honest guv'nor...

We read about traffic “surveys” related to the development that just happened to be sited such that they wouldn’t actually detect any traffic…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/reasons-to-be-objectionable-part-2.html

Another day, another lorry trying to find its way to the vineyard along Bush Road...

…not forgetting the “ecological survey” that, strangely, couldn’t find any wildlife…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/09/reasons-to-be-objectionable-part-3.html

The rare moth that inhabits nearby SSSI woodland.  Present on the development site?  We don't know 'cos they didn't look...

…and the other insubstantial and vague “smoke and mirrors” promises, not least about the supposed creation of a few local jobs that hardly justify the huge damage the development will do to one of the last bits of Medway’s open countryside, let alone the precedent it will set for green belt land across the UK.

I thought it was a pretty shoddy submission, to be honest. So, thankfully, did Medway Council’s planning committee, who deferred the decision, pending a site visit…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/12/medway-council-planning-meeting-winery.html

At the meeting, it became pretty apparent that Medway Council’s Planning department were enthusiastic supporters of the Vineyard Farms scheme. Other aspects of the plans raised at the meeting also warranted further scrutiny…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/12/vineyard-farms-raising-stink.html

Smelling a rat with Vineyard Farms "green energy" plans?  Or worse...?

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2021/12/a-white-christmas.html

Vineyard Farms massive hole in the ground. But what happens to the rubble...?

All credit to the councillors on Medway Council’s planning committee, though. Most of them made the effort to come out to Upper Bush to see what they were being asked to approval the destruction of, although the weather did no-one any favours…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2022/01/big-yellow-taxi.html

...if only our councillors had come to Barrow Hill a day earlier...

…and now that the date of March 9th has been set for the final Planning Committee meeting that will decide upon approval or rejection of their schemes, the Vineyard Farms PR machine has gone up a gear…

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2022/02/dirty-tricks.html

Vineyard Farms begging for support on Facebook.  Saturation or desperation...?

…hence our decision to try and raise our game a bit, although we don’t have the backing of a billionaire tax exile, his corporate business machine and an army of PR wallahs to help get our message out there.

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2022/02/fighting-back.html

Despite all of the efforts made by Vineyard Farms to promote their schemes, and despite having the advocacy of Medway Council's own planning department, it was comprehensively rejected by Medway Council's Planning Committee in March.

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2022/03/thumbs-down.html

Unfortunately, it seems that despite its schemes being clearly unwanted by Medway residents and their elected representatives, Vineyard Farms are intending to appeal against the decision at a Public Inquiry - so watch this space.

Please note the opinions you see expressed here are mine alone, and are not always in agreement with those of other protestors. Like any group of people, we have disagreements about approaches, but we usually come to reach good compromises without the need to get annoyed with each other – curiously unlike those who say (loudly and aggressively) that they are in favour of the winery and who seem to get irrationally angry with anyone who thinks that the Vineyard Farms promised Nirvana isn’t as wonderful as they say it is.

We’re not NIMBYs. We want Vineyard Farms’s wine-making business to succeed. 

Honestly.

But not at any cost.

Finally, here’s a little bit on the historic and peaceful little hamlet of Upper Bush.  It’s supposedly a conservation area but it’s only a few hundred yards or so away from where Vineyard Farms want to build their massive concrete bunker.  It would be a crime if those lovely cottages and their residents were forced to exist in a goldfish bowl as a little side-show for the 70,000 + tourists a year who will form Vineyard Farms’ paying customers, with the area becoming an overflow car-park for them.

https://hallingviews.blogspot.com/2018/10/upper-bush.html

The Old Bakery, Upper Bush...

So thanks for coming here. 

I hope you’ll understand why this development needs to be stopped, not just for local reasons, but for the protection of our green belt land and our wild places everywhere across the UK.

One one final note, I'd like to quote our local historian, the late Derek Church. In the mid 1960's, Upper Bush lost many of its historic cottages thanks to the ignorance of Strood municipal council, the then local authority. Reflecting on that grievous loss in his 1976 book "Cuxton - A Kentish Village" he wrote:

"I cannot begin to imagine what goes through the minds of councillors who can destroy such a place of beauty..." 

Let us hope that, at the planning meeting on March 9th, there are enough councillors with a conscience present so that we do not have to ask ourselves such a question again... 

Monday, 14 February 2022

Surely Not...?

It seems that a new traffic survey was been set up along Bush Road in Cuxton on the 9th. February. Survey cameras have been mounted opposite the junction with the A229 and also by the Cuxton football club pitch.

Traffic survey cameras at Bush Road (by football pitch and by junction with A228)

Almost needless to say, it is half term this week. There will be no school run traffic to measure. The second data point by the social club is also to the west of the school, the club entrance and the shops where most of the Bush Road traffic goes to and from.  In comparison, much less traffic passes by the football field. Measuring traffic flows past the social club would be totally unrepresentative of those at the residential end of Bush Road.

The proposed new winery at Bush Valley has highlighted all of the problems of traffic through the eastern end of Bush Road, which are concentrated in the stretch of road from the junction with the busy A228 through to where Cuxton primary school is. This is, of course, particularly noticeable at school run time, where a combination of sheer vehicles numbers and the narrow nature of the road (plus a smattering of selfish and inconsiderate parking by the “I can do wot I like” contingent) can make negotiating the eastern part of Bush Road a slow, frustrating and frequently hazardous business.

Bush Road is the main arterial route used to gain access to most of the residential areas in Cuxton village. If you live in the main village and have to drive to and from your house, then you’ll have to use Bush Road

Vineyard Farms have always been well aware that any access along Bush Road to their proposed new massive luxury restaurant, wine bar and visitors centre will add more traffic to the already overburdened main access road into Cuxton.

They know that their desire to funnel at least 70,000 tourists a year (and probably many more) plus all of the HGV winery construction and subsequent operational traffic down little Bush Road, past people’s houses, the access to the GP surgery, the shops, the library and the busy, busy school, will worsen what is already a traffic nightmare and will cause huge damage to the quality of life of Cuxton residents.

Right back in 2019 in their early planning exercise, Vineyard Farms knew that Bush Road traffic would most probably be the reason that their planning application would flounder.

So they commissioned a traffic survey, which (lo and behold) gave them answers they liked and furnished them with some favourable data to show Medway’s Planning department that traffic wasn’t an issue in Bush Road. Once the report was published, it became obvious that the data had been collected (by accident or design) from a totally unrepresentative point along Bush Road (by Tomlins Lane), well to the west of the shops and the school where most of the congestion occurs. The survey timing also missed out a lot of the actual school run period.

The poor quality of that survey has been discussed elsewhere.

Despite both Medway Council and Vineyard Farms insisting that there is no real traffic problem in Bush Road as a result of that joke survey, public awareness of the laughable nature of it has become quite high. 

Cuxton Parish Council even commissioned its own survey, which showed west-bound traffic flow into the village to be FOUR TIMES higher at peak times than the “data” gathered by Vineyard Farms’ pet consultants, Meyer Brown.

Parish Council traffic data for Bush Road; 500 cars per hour at peak times!

As it turned out, the first planning meeting told Vineyard Farms to go away and sort out their act, much to the chagrin of both them and Medway’s Planning department, the latter of whom proved themselves at the meeting to be enthusiastic supporters of Lord Foster’s vainglorious Xanadu. 

We know that Medway Council’s planning department are working hand-in-hand with Vineyard Farms. They have even been parroting Vineyard Farms unbelievably self-serving propaganda on the council webpage, saying:

“The proposal would bring significant economic and social benefits both locally and nationally. This would be through the creation of jobs and additional spend in the local area through linked trips and associated tourism as well as providing apprenticeship and educational opportunities.”

“Given the benefits identified above, along with the proposed mitigation measures, the proposed development would result in a sustainable form of development that would outweigh any residual harm and as such planning permission should be granted.”

But somehow, I just can’t believe that Vineyard Farms or Medway Council’s Planning department are behind this latest traffic survey.

After their last debacle, surely they would want to gather data from a time and place that was as representative as possible? Surely they learned their lesson from last time?

Who could possibly want to gather data that almost deliberately seems to want to hugely underestimate traffic along Bush Road, I wonder? 

Why would they want to conduct a survey that (once again) is timed and positioned to miss school run journeys, as well as all of the residential traffic into the village from that comes down from James Road.

Why would they want to disguise the underlying traffic safety risks? What use would that be?

Let’s wait and see… 

Friday, 11 February 2022

Fighting Back...

In the face of a tidal wave of slick propaganda from Vineyard Farms (which now includes paid Facebook adverts begging for public support), the determined bunch of activists I have nicknamed "The Cuxton Bush Valley Preservation Society" have struck back with some pretty spiffy material of their own.

Unlike a lot of the Vineyard Farms documentation for their precious Kentish Wine Vault, the content of their new protest web page is grounded in hard facts rather than vague aspirations...

Home page of the new "NOT the Kentish Wine Vault" web-page...

The site can be found at the following addresses:


and


Please feel free to circulate them as widely as you can.

The more IT-savvy among you may notice that the protestors have (rather cheekily) bagged the .com domain for the Kentish Wine Vault.  Hopefully, once the search engine stuff gets sorted, it should mean that the site will become the first hit for anyone looking for "Kentish Wine Vault".  That'll be amusing, and only fair.  After all, this is the site that REALLY tells you all about the Kentish Wine Vault development and its true impact.

It's still a work in progress but it needed to be put out quickly, now that Vineyard Farms have upped the ante with their Facebook ads, desperately pleading for members of the public to e-mail them via a proforma, so that they can claim the correspondence as "support" on Medway Council's planning portal.

The protestors have adopted the same tactic, although whether Medway Council will allow the Cuxton Bush Valley Preservation Society to garner support in the same underhanded way that Vineyard Farms are doing will be interesting to see.

The buttons at the bottom of the home page take you to some of the documentation that has been prepared in advance of various meetings taking place over the next few weeks. Whilst Cuxton's elected representatives on the Parish Council are forbidden to take part in these meetings (such is local democracy these days) the protest team have been working hard to ensure that Medway's councillors get to see the other side of the argument to that being espoused by the Vineyard Farms PR team or Medway Council's own planning department.  

They have tried to cut through the "smoke and mirrors" of the thousands of pages of documentation and PR puffs that Vineyard Farms have belched forth in support of their planning application, along with highlighting the objections from professional bodies such as the Kent ANOB team, whose evidence against the winery development has been pretty much buried or airily dismissed.

Of particular note is the excellent "Community Insight" document that will be shortly winging its way in hard copy to Medway's councillors. It presents an excellent summary of the deficiencies of the Vineyard Farms planning application.  At 32 pages, it is not a document for the terminally lazy or the hard-of-thinking, but it is an easy read and has some nice pictures. I challenge anyone with an open mind to read that and then still say that they think the winery development in Bush Valley is a good idea.

There are also links to some questions that really need answering satisfactorily before the development is approved, and also to some additional light reading provided by yours truly (hem hem) in form of links to some of my old blog posts. 

After all, I've been watching Vineyard Farms roll this lot out for three years now, and their apparent contempt for Cuxton and the treatment of the land under their stewardship has managed to turn my initial optimistic support into implacable opposition (not that that counts for much, of course).

Do surf the web page.  I hope you'll find it entertaining and informative.  And watch that space. More stuff will be added I'm sure...

Update: I'm told by the site admin that someone has already tried to hack the web page and take it down, but fortunately its security was well up to resisting the attack.  Seems someone out there doesn't like us...

Thursday, 10 February 2022

Dirty Tricks...

The original closing date on Medway Council’s planning portal for to comments on the Vineyard Farms plans to build a luxury restaurant complex on Bush Valley was September 22nd. last year.  At one point, there were over 230 objections and only 15 letters of support for them.

Mysteriously, the portal has been kept open. This seems unusual, to say the least.

Purely coincidentally, I’m sure, Vineyard Farms have recently placed an advert on Facebook, begging for support.

The Facebook ad sends you to their web-page and invites you to fill in a proforma that will e-mail Medway Council with a letter of support “on your behalf”. None of this nonsense having to register with the council web-site or composing your own reasons for supporting the Vineyard Farms scheme: Vineyard Farms will do all that for you. 


How nice of them.

In summary, Medway’s Planning department have, by all appearances, decided to allow a developer more time to try and garner public support for their pet project and are allowing generic e-mailed correspondence sent from said developer to count as “support” for it.

On that basis, perhaps Medway Council will allow the 1,000+ signatures on the Change.orgpetition to count as individual objections to the scheme…(and please sign the petition if you haven't already!).

(Update, February 16th): if, like me, you were thinking that perhaps the Vineyard Farms auto-generated e-mail approach as a way of trying to gather support could be open to abuse, then you'll be amused to hear that none other than our local MP, Kelly Tolhurst, has been writing to people telling them that someone has submitted a fake letter of support for the winery to the council in her name. Kelly is not happy at someone hijacking her name and address, unsurprisingly.

A quick look at the Council portal shows that, yes indeed, Kelly's name and address was used on a Vineyard Farms template in an apparently spurious letter of support.

Perhaps Medway Council should therefore take down ALL of the support letters for the Vineyard Farms proposals received from their Facebook advert template, as the identities of the senders obviously cannot be verified. Anyone with a postal mailing list could start sending in fake letters of support. Maybe we'll even get to see support letters from M. Mouse, D. Duck, T. Tempest or J.T. Kirk on the council's portal...

Unlike Vineyard Farms, I don’t have a slick PR machine backed by a billionaire tax exile to help propagate my view of the world.  Neither do I have the backing of Medway Council's planning department to allow the posting of my own propaganda on Medway council's website - unlike Vineyard Farms

If, however, your views on this are similar to mine and you have yet to register a formal objection to the Vineyard Farms scheme with Medway Council, you can click on the link below: 

https://kentishwinevault.com/ 

and then go to the "Submit Your Objection" option on the bottom left-hand corner of the web-page.  It's quick and easy and avoids having to faff about registering on Medway Council's planning portal.

Alternatively, you could:

·           send your objection to planning.representations@medway.gov.uk. (Clicking on the link should start an e-mail in your e-mail account with the address already put in.)

·           call the title of the e-mail: “Objection:  MC/21/2328 - Construction of a winery building on Land South Of Bush Road Near Cuxton, Medway, Kent.”

·           you'll need to include your name and address for the objection to carry any weight.

If you haven’t already, please take the time to e-mail Medway Council with your objection to the plans of Vineyard Farms, as above.