Millington v. The Green Belt...

Way back in September 2021, I poured scorn on what I thought was an outrageous piece of sophistry by Vineyard Farms in their planning application for their luxury winery on green belt land at Upper Bush near Cuxton.

Central to the applicant’s case throughout the planning process has been the claim that the proposed 16,000m2 £30 million tourist, hospitality and manufacturing facility comprising of an above-ground restaurant, café, visitor’s centre, wine-tasting area and shop, designed to serve an initial 65,000 visitors a year, combined with a subterranean (and therefore not visible) wine factory having a capacity to produce up to 10m bottles of wines a year, is a mere “agricultural building”.

This argument is important to them, possibly because it’s the only one they have.

National planning guidelines state that:

“A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt”.

…and that:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.

However, they go on to state:

“Exceptions to this are…buildings for agriculture and forestry…”

This exception allows the applicants to bypass considerations of satisfying the “very special circumstances” that set a very high bar in terms of green belt development, one that even this design would probably not otherwise clear.

To “lay” people such as ourselves, it would seem that such a large facility, with its tourist elements so prominently placed on view in such a protected and environmentally-sensitive landscape, could hardly be considered to be an “agricultural building”.

It seems laughable. Indeed, Medway Council's planning officers should have thrown it all out at the pre-application stage and saved everyone (especially themselves) a load of unnecessary grief.

It all seems rather at odds with Gravesham Borough Council's unwillingness to support Meopham Vineyard's application to build a similar but much more modest winery overlooking Happy Valley in Meopham.

Nevertheless, a legal precedent exists that would appear to justify such a thing, one which has been extensively quoted by the applicant since pre-application days.

Just a farm shop, guv'nor, honest, just like wot you'd get on any other farm...

And when a guy like Mr. Sasha White KC (Vineyard Farms’ advocate and one of the leading legal planning experts in the UK) is telling you that this is indeed the case, then suddenly you have to take it very, very seriously indeed.

This legal precedent initially arose (perhaps somewhat ironically) out of a dispute around traffic. David Millington ran (and still runs, I think) the Wroxeter Roman Vineyard, which is located near Wroxeter, not far to the east of Shrewsbury in Shropshire.

Compared to the Vineyard Farms operation it is tiny, with a mere 12 acres under vines. To help his little vineyard along, Mr. Millington and his family started providing visitors with snacks and drinks in addition to making and selling his wine on site.

His little winery, a typical example of an agricultural “crinkly tin” shed, backs on to a few houses and it seems that the local residents started to object to the traffic that began to visit Mr. Millington’s increasingly popular venue.

Initially, the local authority tried to block Mr. Millington making, and then selling, his wines and eventually (as these things can do when you have the money to follow it through) it wound up going all the way up to, and then beyond, the Secretary of State, to be debated in the High Court by some of the most senior judges in the land.

The upshot was that Millington v. The Secretary of State (1999) established that:

“...the making and selling of wine from grapes grown on the premises (associated vineyard), including tours and tastings, are classified as ‘ancillary agricultural activities’ where the growing of grapes is the primary use. Therefore, winemaking is classified as an agricultural activity (and)… associated vineyard shops and other ancillary businesses on-site are just that; ancillary.” (see reference 1).

This precedent was evidenced in the applicant’s pre-application Planning Statement. It was uncritically accepted by Medway Council’s Planning department until after the planning committee meeting of 8 December 2021, when the planners finally stopped copying Vineyard Farms' homework and got some independent advice. This told them exactly what the scheme's objectors had been telling them for three months, i.e. that the applicant’s proposals constituted “inappropriate development”.

I suspect that by then, Medway Council’s planners, who had been passionate advocates of the Vineyard Farms’ billionaire Xanadu since pre-app days, were now in too deep to back away.

Thus, the planning officers still recommended that the Planning Committee should approve the scheme at the March 2022 meeting, something that the elected councillors of the committee declined to do.

In the subsequent formal rejection notification (written by Medway’s planning officers) green belt considerations were not cited as a reason for rejecting the applicant’s proposals, possibly because Medway Council didn’t fancy now challenging the High Court precedent it had previously accepted as valid.

The "Rule 6 parties" (i.e. Cuxton Parish Council and their supporters) were subsequently advised by the Planning Inspectorate not to formally contest green belt issues at the inquiry, as this may leave them liable for a cost award against them. Pay up or shut up is how major planning applications seem to be decided these days.

On the opening day of the planning inquiry the Vineyard Farms advocate, Mr. Sasha White KC, spelt out that in his legal opinion, a ruling applied to a family-run business operating out of a shed was equally applicable to a Lord Foster £30m pleasure dome, 16,000m2 in total floor area and requiring a staff of 80 to run it.

As “lay” people, we are obviously in no position whatsoever to question Mr. Sasha White KC’s expert opinion on this matter. I certainly wouldn’t dare to. Jesus, that guy would have me on toast...

Nevertheless, I have to repeat that it just seems incredible that a principle applied (not unreasonably) to a small family winery operating out of a modest tin shed is now being used to justify the building of a £30m restaurant, café and hospitality complex with an above-ground area of approximately 4500m2 (and where 80% its projected 82 staff are involved in hospitality activities rather than bottled wine production) on protected green belt land.

Farmyard animals settling down for the evening in their "agricultural building..."

Towards the end of the formal transcript of the Millington case, Lord Justice Schiemann was recorded as making the following observation, however:

“My own instinctive view on the arguments which we have heard is that the making of wine or cider or apple juice on the scale with which we are concerned is a perfectly normal activity for a farmer engaged in growing wine grapes or apples…” (my emphasis).

This seems to imply that some consideration does indeed need to be given to the scale of winery operation in the context of the above judgement. i.e. what is “perfectly normal” for a vineyard of a dozen or so acres working out of a tin shed may not be for one of, say, 1200 acres and a winery with a total floor area of 1.6 hectares in green belt land.

As stated earlier, the winery that was the subject of the above dispute is the Wroxeter Roman Vineyard, which is located in the Shropshire Hills AONB but is obviously not designated green belt land.

Aerial views that compare the scale of the Wroxeter Roman Vineyard to that of the appeal scheme are shown below.

Google maps screen grab of the Wroxeter vineyard area. The winery building is just visible at centre

.

Google maps screen grab of the VF winery, same scale.

From Google maps, it can be estimated that the size of the Wroxeter winery building is approximately 370m2. At approximately 4500m2, the visible part of the appeal scheme is an order of magnitude greater than the winery that was the subject of the above judgement.

In terms of scale, I really suspect that Mr. Sasha White KC is pushing the envelope on this one. Not that I’d dare tell him that to his face, of course.

It has been said that, given that the manufacturing part of the appeal scheme comprises 85% of the building’s operational space and is below the ground line, the winery can be compared to an iceberg. In terms of its visible impact, all that can be seen are the hospitality areas.

And as the Titanic found out, it’s the bit you can see that really has the impact.

It’s not just the scale of operation that casts doubt over the applicability of the Millington judgement to the VF winery. There are additional green belt sensitivities to consider. The Wroxeter winery is not sited in green belt land. 

As stated earlier, NPPF green belt development criteria set a “high bar” of “very special circumstances” to permit new developments within green belt land. If the appeal scheme was not considered to be an agricultural building, it is unlikely that it would meet the “very special circumstances” criteria.

While “Gross Value Added” (GVA) estimates provided by the applicant’s clever-clever accounting agents look superficially impressive, when assessed against the overall local economic activity, they are trivial.

Provision of perhaps 150 largely low-skilled jobs of a low-end type (hospitality or agricultural) that employers are already struggling to fill, and in areas of low unemployment like Cuxton, Cobham or Luddesdown, hardly suggest “very special circumstances”.

Similarly, the VF winery is looking (so it says) to bring in 65,000 visitors a year. Medway annual tourism figures are around 4.5 million. An overall increase to Medway’s tourist visitor numbers of 1.4% hardly seems significant.

Other planning guidelines talk about the “need” for a facility that justifies the sacrifice of green belt AONB.

Wine is hardly an essential and there are plenty of other suppliers in the UK in terms of meeting any national “need” anyway. Having planted 700 acres of vines in such a hurry, VF definitely need a manufacturing base, but why at the Upper Bush AONB? 

Because they want their visitors to enjoy the view out of their restaurant window across the Bush Valley, that’s why. That’s hardly a “need” in terms of national or local requirements. 

Other local vineyards, such as Meopham or Chapel Down, are quite happy to manufacture away from point of harvest. Why can’t Vineyard Farms?

Another factor is that the Millington precedent was established over 20 years ago. The world has changed much since then. Perception of the value of unspoiled green belt AONB land (and indeed, protection of the environment in general), especially in a crowded and highly-developed area such as North Kent, has become much sharpened, and particularly as a result of Covid lockdowns.

The use of an elderly legal precedent to justify what is essentially the construction of a viticultural theme park in precious green belt land seems inappropriate by the standards of today.

There are implications for green belt in general as well. Approval of this scheme could set a precedent that would open up all green belt/AONB land to other such developments. If one billionaire tax-exile is allowed to build a vanity winery on green belt land, then they’ll all want one. Is this a good thing?

Mr. Sasha White KC is arguing the case for upholding the Millington precedent because he is being paid to by his client. He is advancing that argument because he considers it to be a strong one, for sure, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right.

Unfortunately, the local community was unable to afford to engage the legal services required to argue otherwise at this inquiry. The threat of having costs awarded against them also helped to silence any formal community argument against green belt development.  Even then, can the issue really be resolved at this planning inquiry?

Given this question of the exact applicability of the Millington precedent to the vast scale of the appeal scheme and its criticality in this appeal, it may need a legal debate that is perhaps outside the scope of this inquiry.

It’s hard to see quite what is going on in the background to all this. Neither Medway Council nor Vineyard Farms wanted green belt issues on the agenda, for obvious reasons. It was the Planning Inspectorate that raised them for discussion.

Vineyard Farms simply have too many highly-paid and highly-polished subject matter experts arguing for them on their behalf for them not to win their appeal under normal circumstances. But this is an extraordinary development, and one that may set a potentially disastrous precedent for green belt/AONB landscapes across the whole of the UK.

Ultimately this will go before the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, for final approval. One would hope that he might refer this case to m’learned friends, in order to debate the assertion of Mr. Sasha White KC that in the eyes of the law, a small tin shed serving 12 acres of vines is just the same as a £30m 16,000m2 luxury vinicultural theme park set in 900 acres of a green belt AONB.

Let's see...

References:

1)    South Downs Local Plan, Viticulture Technical Advice Note, April 2021, p10, 3.6.

https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SDNPA-Viticulture-Technical-Advice-Note-TAN.pdf

Winery public inquiry - some observations from the second day...

The second day of the public inquiry was hosted in the main hall (pictured above) of the Corn Exchange, Rochester on Friday 24th March.

Use of main hall seemed like a nice idea compared to the stuffy room of yesterday, but it soon became apparent that the acoustics were terrible, it being impossible to hear anyone speaking from more than a few feet away. The council staff couldn’t have been more helpful, but unfortunately their two available radio microphones didn't seem to work unless you virtually swallowed them, and even then not that well.

The morning was taken up with a “round table” discussion of traffic issues affecting Cuxton, and how the advent of the winery might make things worse.

This was always going to be a hiding to nothing, and not just because of the acoustics. Indeed, part of the reason Medway Council did not cite traffic as a reason for refusing the original application is that the various transport guidelines are so broad that attempting to defend a planning refusal on traffic grounds alone is virtually impossible from a legal perspective.

Nevertheless, Cuxton Parish Council felt they had to give it a try given the strength of feeling in the village.

It is a fact of life that councils and traffic planners aren’t that bothered about anyone’s inconvenience. If it takes you ten minutes of get out of the end of Bush Road in the morning, it matters not to them. Safety is (quite rightly) the only consideration.

We put across the argument that we felt the A228 junction with Bush Road is a dangerous one, and why.

We talked about how large lorries and HGVs cause constant problems along Bush Road, especially at school run times.

We asked why our “lived experience” of traffic in Bush Road seemed so different to the expert’s view that there wasn’t a problem, and wondered if an urban traffic model was suitable for application to Cuxton’s semi-rural location.

We mentioned that the Vineyard Farms had hinted at expansion plans that could give rise to traffic volumes way beyond those covered by their assessments.

Vineyard Farm’s transport consultant, James Bevis listened to it all quite patiently and just smiled. His message was quite simple.

Like it or not, folks, all the survey numbers say that there isn’t a traffic problem in Cuxton, at least, not when judged against national guidelines for that sort of thing. The winery traffic won’t make a jot of difference to that. All the HGVs we see in the village are nothing to do with Vineyard Farms’ existing operations at Luddesdown, apparently. And the junction isn’t classed as “dangerous” because enough people haven’t been killed to call it so.

Mr. Bevis was quite pleasant and almost apologetic about it all. Indeed, he showed that you didn’t necessarily have to be a shouty bully in order to put your client’s case across effectively.

"... but our numbers say..."

He stopped short of saying that any congestion we see in Bush Road must therefore be a hallucination upon our part, but I kind of got the impression that he would have just loved to have done.

There were one or two emotional observations from residents, which Mr. Bevis dealt with politely but firmly. Sorry, folks, it is what it is. Lorry headlights giving you problems? Buy some curtains, they work really well...

And after a couple of hours, that was that. I don’t think we made much of an impression.

One can only hope that the inspector perhaps made a note of the observation that in their submission documents, Vineyard Farms stated that they saw this application as being just the first part of an “estate-wide strategy”. This implies expansion plans not included in any transport assessment. Similarly, their Transport Assessment states that they could double wine production from 5 to 10 million bottles a year. This doubling of output was not considered in any “worst case” traffic scenario.

It was the one argument Mr. Bevis seemed a bit evasive about. I hope the inspector noted that.

The afternoon session saw us give up on the main hall and return to the stuffy room of yesterday. At least it was possible to hear everyone speak and with far fewer audience members, it was at least bearable.

The topic was one of “landscaping” and was part of the AONB defence being made by Medway Council. The council’s expert was a Mr. Etchells, who spent about 30 minutes calmly going through numerous arcane examples of how, in his opinion, Vineyard Farms had underestimated the adverse impact that the winery building would have on the appearance and tranquillity of a previously undeveloped and unspoilt AONB.

To me, his arguments all seemed pretty reasonable.

However, they seemed (to me) to make Mr. Sasha White KC quite angry (on his client’s behalf, I assume). He piled into the unfortunate Mr, Etchells, asking complex questions in machine-gun fashion and demanding “yes or no” answers. One had to admire Mr. Sasha White KC's grasp of the material and I can only assume (having had no experience of this sort of thing) that this is how top KCs normally operate. It all seemed unnecessarily aggressive, intimidating and confrontational to me.

To begin with, Mr. Etchells handled it all quite well, but the relentless onslaught from Mr. Sasha White KC clearly began to fluster him after a while. In the end, the inspector intervened and said he was quite happy to hear “qualified” answers to complex questions, and Mr. Sasha White KC subsequently dialled it down a little.

Quite what the planning inspector made of it all, I don’t know. I suppose he must be used to it.

I certainly couldn’t work out what the conclusion was. I suppose we will have to wait until the end of the inquiry.

Unfortunately and rather frustratingly for me, I tested positive for Covid over the weekend and so I shall be unable witness further proceedings. I hope others will keep me up to date. 

Winery public inquiry – some observations from the first day…

The main hall, Corn Exchange, Rochester...

The public inquiry into Medway Council’s rejection of the Vineyard Farm plans to build a massive viticultural theme park on green belt land at Upper Bush began at Rochester’s Corn Exchange on Thursday.

There seemed to be quite a good turn-out of Cuxton residents, maybe around 40 people. It was a shame that they were crowded into a stuffy side room rather than the rather splendid main hall pictured above, but the latter had been pre-booked in the late afternoon for a wake for a popular local businessman.

The opening session saw the protagonists introduce themselves to the inspector, a Mr. Stephen Wilkinson. Representing the cast of doubtlessly highly-paid experts from Vineyard Farms was Mr Sasha White, KC (King’s Council, and definitely and most certainly nothing to do with the Sunshine Band). Mr. White is one of the top KCs in the UK, hugely experienced, highly successful and a highly-regarded (amongst his peers, at least) planning law specialist.

If ever you needed evidence of the infinitely deep pockets of the owner of Vineyard Farms, then the mere presence of someone like Mr. White KC in the room on their behalf was it. And you’d better hope that Mr. White KC was on your side if you ever had to present such evidence.

He quickly established the case for the winery and it became apparent that much hinged on being able to demonstrate that the massive luxury restaurant, visitor’s centre etc. etc. was in fact, merely an agricultural building such as you might find on any working farm.

Of this, Mr. White KC was ferociously certain. There could be no doubt at all, for Mr. White KC was in full and unalienable freehold possession of A Legal Precedent. Thus, there could be no credible arguments against his client’s magnificent and iconic winery. The End.

I’ll give an explanation of, and a few observations upon, “The Precedent” a bit later.

Medway Council were represented by their own brief, who was a one-day stand in for the usual chap, a Dr. Rouse. They would be contesting the applicant’s appeal on grounds of Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) conservation only, given that Medway’s council’s planners had excluded other arguments from the formal rejection notice.

And, on behalf of Cuxton’s residents, Paul Pattison spoke for the “Rule Six parties”, a trio of plucky local people who have bravely put themselves in the way of the clenched fist of the Silverhand Estate to try and fight off this development.

They had already been advised that they could not “formally” contest green belt issues unless they were prepared to take the risk of having costs awarded against them (something they naturally declined to do) and so their case would be (as I understand it) confined to presenting their views to the inspector on certain topics, rather than attempting to argue directly against the applicant’s case.

Also in the audience was KentOnLine’s Local Democracy Reporter, although whether our high-quality local news outlet will be able to make room for her copy in amongst its normal click-bait of Brexit, immigrants in boats, “compo” faces and advertorials for Wetherspoons is another matter.

Around 90 minutes had been set aside for people to make presentations as “interested parties” to the planning inspector.

The inspector naturally needed to have an idea of how many people wanted to speak, with would-be presenters having to register their interest with Medway Council in advance. It seemed, however, that Medway Council had not passed the list on to the inspector who, unsurprisingly, was a little taken aback by this.

As might be expected though, Mr. Wilkinson has a reassuring air of not being readily rattled by anything and he soon organised the speakers, although presentation time for each was rather curtailed.

First, we got to hear from Councillor Simon Curry, who spoke about the conflict of the winery development with the history of the area, its unclear local benefits and the adverse impact upon the local traffic. Our own ward councillor, Matt Fearn, was obviously unable to attend and Simon was speaking as an “interested party” and private individual rather than as a councillor.

This did not stop the fearsome Mr. Sasha White KC from tearing into him at the end, quizzing him about his decision to vote against the winery development at the March 2022 planning committee meeting. Simon was a bit taken aback (as anyone would be) but handled it pretty well, I thought.

Not surprisingly, this made the subsequent speakers rather nervous.

Fortunately, Mr White KC remained quiescent thereafter and we got to hear about the behaviour of the applicants towards residents of Upper Bush and the adverse impact we are already seeing upon the local area as a result of their activities. To me, this was the most powerful presentation of the day: I had no idea just how the behaviour and activities of Vineyard Farms' operators had degraded the quality of Upper Bush resident's lives. "Living in fear" was one shocking phrase that stuck in my mind, and hopefully in that of the Planning Inspector's as well. 

We also heard some well-thought-out (and well articulated) presentations on the loss of dark skies, the lack of value that the winery would actually bring to the local community, (questioning the “need” for such a thing and its claim to offer “very special circumstances”), and also the impact of the winery upon our poor old local badger population, a family of which have apparently been in residence in the area for over a hundred years.

All of these are regulatory reasons not to grant planning permission.

A few residents also made some passionate speeches around the traffic situation, something Medway Council did not want to make a case out of because it is difficult to argue from a planning perspective – and especially when you have been so supportive of the applicant’s plans in the past…

The inspector, Mr. Wilkinson, wound things up early as the “interested party” session had rather over-run, but I think the community of Cuxton (and particularly those of Upper Bush) took good advantage of the opportunity to get its views across.

 

Ploughshares To Swords...

Proposed winery site at Barrow Hill, June 2021...

The public inquiry into the Cuxton winery development at Upper Bush begins tomorrow (Thursday 23rd March) at the Corn Exchange in Rochester. It sees the hordes of highly-paid legal and subject matter experts (the best that a billionaire tax-exile’s money can buy, no doubt) pitted against a lonely-looking Medway Council brief and a few determined (if somewhat apprehensive) Cuxton residents.

One thing that has happened is that the Planning Inspector has put Green Belt protection issues back on the agenda. As I noted earlier, Medway Council’s planners had not cited this as a reason for refusal, a move which must have delighted the applicants. 

The problem is, of course, is that Medway's planners, having supported the applicant's plans and indicated that they didn't think traffic or green belts issues were a problem, have now put the Council in a cleft stick. It can hardly be seen to be arguing against what they so very clearly approved of, which is why they are confining their defence to issues around green belt conservation.

One can hardly blame Vineyard Farms for being aggrieved, perhaps.

Maybe the inspector feels he is legally bound to look at all aspects of the appeal scheme however, not just the ones the vineyard folk and Medway Council’s planners want him to.

In a small way, I feel a bit sorry for Vineyard Farms. During the early pre-application phase, it seemed that no-one within their cosy network had tried to inject a bit of local reality into the debate by taking a long, hard and critical look at the compatibility of the proposals with planning guidelines. The emphasis seemed to be all about getting around them, rather that coming up with a scheme that simply complied with them and could gain local support.

VF seems to be a “young” company in terms of its managers and personally, I think they’ve been poorly served by some of their advisors. It would have been nice to have been friends, rather than adversaries.

My own objection to their plans has always been on a point of principle, in that I think they violate the planning protections afforded to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt.

Foster's Flying Saucer...

I really am not a NIMBY. I have to be honest and and say that I would have loved to have seen that wonderful Lord Foster flying saucer landing near me.

If only Bush Valley wasn’t AONB/Green Belt land. If only it wasn’t surrounded by precious SSSI woodland.

And if only the site of the proposed winery could be easily reached, instead of having to funnel all of its construction, servicing and tourist traffic down the narrow little residential cul-de-sac that is Cuxton’s Bush Road.

But despite what it suits all of the traffic experts to say, Bush Valley is hard to get to and most of all, is a peaceful, beautiful area, one afforded some of the highest levels of protection from development offered by existing national planning guidelines.

What the flying saucer might look like in late evening?  So much for dark skies...

To me, it seems incredible that Medway Council’s planning department have encouraged Vineyard Farms’ schemes since the early days of the pre-application process back at the start of 2021. The planners must have been aware from day one that a development of the proposed scale might just constitute “inappropriate development” under terms of national planning guidelines and that it flew in the face of many of their own guidelines spelt out in Medway’s Local Plan. Yet that key show-stopper didn’t seem to bother them until the very last minute. 

Of course, we don't know what went on in meetings with key stakeholders throughout the first half of 2021. Representatives of the local Cuxton community were not regarded as key stakeholders and they  were not invited to such discussions. We only live here, after all. 

But I suppose our local council planners are only human. After all, they must spend most of their days looking at plans for drab shop conversions, featureless housing developments or people’s garage extensions.

Perhaps you can understand a degree of bedazzlement in the face of Lord Foster’s glittering design. What a wonderful thing to have on “your patch”. And without meaning to impugn the professional judgement of Medway Council’s planners (who I hear are held in high esteem by most local councillors) perhaps, just perhaps, the siren voices of Foster and Partners, along with all of the other slick advisors being paid from the bottomless pockets of Vineyard Farms’ owner, beguiled our beleaguered local planners into just going along with the enchanted flow.

You have to contrast the enthusiasm of Medway planners for the Kentish Wine Vault with the refusal of neighbouring Gravesham Borough Council to support Meopham Vineyard’s plans for a much more modest winery overlooking Happy Valley.

Nope, GBC said. It’s a green belt AONB, and will send too much traffic down narrow residential roads. Does that situation sound familiar?

In the end, Meopham Vineyard withdrew their application. But of course, Meopham Vineyard didn't have the clout of a billionaire owner and the cachet of Lord Foster behind them...

Barrow Hill, July 2022 - "because we can"...

Had Medway Council’s planning advice to Vineyard Farms been perhaps just been a bit more cautious and critical, maybe the winery folk wouldn’t have been encouraged to put so much time, money and effort into grandiose plans that now face a remote but still-possible chance that they may all come to nothing.

If Vineyard Farms get their way, it could have wider implications, possibly setting a precedent for the industrial-scale development of green-belt/AONBs across the UK.

I’m sure that this is something the planning inspector (and his old/new boss, Michael Gove) has to consider. The possibility of such a precedent being set is why I am against these proposals.

Of course, there are no real winners in this situation now.

If Vineyard Farms are successful, the local, vocal supporters of the winery will doubtless be pleased to get an opportunity to take the mickey out of those they call the NIMBY tree-huggers.

Until the construction traffic starts rolling along Bush Road, that is, and they face an interminable wait to get their SUVs out onto the A228. And then when the noise, dust and congestion caused by construction is over after two or three years, things get even worse when the wine factory is turning out far more bottles than any traffic assessment ever allowed for, or the visitor’s centre is attracting five times as many visitors as they said it would. After all, you don’t spend £30m on a winery and not then wring every last drop of financial advantage out of it.

(And perhaps the traffic situation will backfire on Vineyard Farms as well. You can almost imagine the one star TripAdvisor ratings: “Nice place but a ‘mare to get to. Avoid!!!!”).

Cuxton as a nice place to live will be downgraded by all of this, but then that’ll all be the parish council’s fault for not fighting hard enough, won’t it?

And if the winery folk don’t get what they want, then we know what will happen.

We know they aren’t good losers.

After their original planning application was rejected by the councillors of Medway Council’s planning committee, that was when the “keep to the footpaths” signs went up, the soil and spoil started getting piled everywhere and their security patrols started policing the mythically-named “Silverhand Estate”.

“If we can’t have what we want, neither can you,” seemed to be the message. And if their appeal is rejected, they’ve made it clear (in the "Proof Of Evidence" documentation prepared for the inquiry) just what they are going to do as a result...

Drawings taken from Vineyard Farms "Proof of Evidence" appendices...

They’ve threatened to build a series of huge sheds to house their wine factory, 12m high and 1000m2 in area, right on the edge of Bush Road overshadowing residents houses down near the bottom of Tomlins Lane, under “permitted development rights”. They've thrown some scary traffic numbers at us as well, which involves doing stuff that they didn't need to do when they had a swanky winery in the offering. 

Somehow, sheds mean they have to bring their harvest down the road instead of across fields. Why? It also means that apparently, they can't compost their grape waste somewhere on their massive 1200 acre estate and it will have to be taken through the village for composting offsite instead. Seems rather desperate stuff to me. Most farms have compost heaps, after all. And none of this solves infrastructure issues such as water supply or drains, which are restricted.

Of course, Medway Council's planning committee could put a stop to this nonsense by refusing to give planning permission for the access road... 

Sure, they need a factory to make their wine. But for something as important to their business as a manufacturing base is, perhaps they should have made absolutely certain where it could go before planting 700 acres of vines in such a hurry.

Of course, the drawings of their “sheds” show masses of buildings and I'm not sure they could build them all at once under said permitted development rights from what I can see, but then I guess they just want to fire warning shots at the moment.

You just know what some folk will say.

“See what you protesters have done!? We could have had a beautiful winery, now we’ve just got a load of big ugly barns!”, forgetting of course that it’s the winery folk who would actually be doing the building.

They have 1200 acres of land to play with. With a bit of thought, they could put their factory sheds anywhere. And they could make them a lot prettier, too, if they wanted to. 

Chapel Down has no problem with building their new wine factory on a business park 20 miles away from their main vineyards. Traffic and infrastructure issues solved, easy. But VF just won't back off.

So let the appeal inquiries commence.

I’m sure it will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Game On...

As it seems that we have to rely on old footballers to carry the torch on matters of outrageous injustice, I thought this might be appropriate...

The public inquiry begins on March 23rd. 

We travel most hopefully, but are under no illusions about what we are up against....