Agenda item

Cuxton and Halling

Construction of a winery building including café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

Discussion:

The Head of Planning outlined the planning application in detail and explained the various elements of the application including the construction of a winery building., This included a café/restaurant and visitor centre with energy centre, car park, access road and landscaping.

Drawing attention to the supplementary agenda advice sheet he informed the Committee that if the Committee was minded to approve the application, it was proposed that one further obligation relating to a Skills and Employment Plan be added to the Section 106 agreement and a number of the proposed conditions be replaced and, where necessary, re-numbered.

In addition, he advised that since despatch of the agenda the applicant had submitted a briefing note for consideration by the Committee, a copy of which was appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet. Cuxton Parish Council had also emailed Members of the Committee attaching two representations of objection from the Parish Council and two representations from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Unit in relation to the proposal. These representations reiterated concerns regarding the location of the proposal in the AONB and Greenbelt and the increase in traffic which would be generated should the application be approved.

A further change to the Committee report included a replacement paragraph under the principle section of the Appraisal on page 53 of the agenda. The replacement paragraph was set out on the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

In outlining the application, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that the use of the land as a winery qualified as an agricultural use and therefore the applicant could provide buildings on site which were ancillary to the use of the land as a vineyard under Permitted Development Rights. However, the majority of the buildings associated with this development would be built underground within the site.

The Committee was informed that the AONB Unit had suggested that if the application was to be approved, a darker shade of concrete be used for the coping below the roof so as to be more sympathetic to its surroundings and the Head of Planning advised that both the applicant and officers were satisfied with this suggestion and therefore if approved, this would be addressed within the submission of materials pursuant to the recommended condition.

Referring to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Head of Planning advised that in determining whether the principle of this proposal was acceptable, it was necessary to consider whether the proposal comprised sustainable development and to consider the impact of the development on the character of the area and the importance of the site in landscape terms.

The NPPF referred to sustainable development having an economic, a social and an environmental role. This meant that weight had to be given to:

a)    the social benefits in creating training opportunities for local people and supporting rural tourism;

b)    the economic benefits in terms of providing jobs and boosting the local economy during the construction and operation phase and providing the increased workforce that enabled continued economic growth in the longer term; and

c)    environmental benefits to protecting and enhancing the natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, improving biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.

Having considered the above, officers were satisfied that the proposal would provide both social and economic benefits associated with the construction and operation of the winery including the provision of 75 -100 permanent and seasonal jobs once operational and more throughout the supply chain. There would also be training opportunities as set out in the Skills & Employment Plan submitted with the application, which would improve employability, along with supporting rural tourism. These factors weighed in the scheme’s favour. However, it was also important to consider the environmental impact in terms of assessing the impact on the Greenbelt and AONB; protecting and enhancing the natural environment; helping to improve biodiversity and mitigating and adapting to climate change. In determining whether the principle of this proposal was acceptable, it would be necessary to assess the matter of sustainability within the planning balance giving relevant weight to the benefits the proposal brought to the rural economy and tourism, education and employment, ecology and biodiversity and farm diversification.

With the agreement of the Committee, Councillor Fearn addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor and set out the following summarised concerns:

• This proposed development would create an intrusion in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Greenbelt and was masquerading behind the ‘agricultural use’ of the land as a winery. The development would not enhance the environment or landscape but would create damage to the AONB and result in the loss of dark skies and thus impact on local wildlife.
• The area of Bush Road in Cuxton is remote and isolated and an area of beauty with thriving wildlife and is used by many people for walking and cycling and the intrusion of concrete, vehicles and light pollution is not welcomed. There is a substantial level of objection to the proposal.
• The A228 is already at over capacity and this development, along with the planned Lower Thames Crossing will have a detrimental impact on traffic and subsequently air quality in the area.
• The development will serve a niche market and will be of little benefit to the residents of Cuxton and Medway and many of the jobs will be low skilled seasonal work.

The Committee discussed the application and a number of issues were raised as summarised below:

• The impact on increased traffic generation in Bush Road, Cuxton as being the only access through the village. In response, the Principal Transport Planner advised that having assessed the anticipated level of traffic movements, officers were satisfied that this would not be unacceptable on highway safety grounds, particularly as the applicants were able to use the land as a winery, which was an acceptable agricultural use. The hours of use of the Café and Restaurant would be outside rush hour timings and that of school runs.
• There was also concern that the siting of this tourist attraction in Cuxton could result in parking in the village which would have a detrimental impact upon local residents.
• The impact on the biodiversity of the area. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the applicants were able to use the land as a winery, including the processing of grapes which fell within the classification of an agricultural use. The scheme also added to the biodiversity of the area.
• In response to concerns as to disposal of waste water, the Head of Planning advised that this was covered on page 69 of the agenda.
• In response to concerns as to energy generation, the Head of Planning drew attention to that element of the development relating to the energy centre.
• Concern was expressed that whilst the provision of a winery at the site might be acceptable on the basis of it being regarded as an agricultural use, other elements of the development including provision of a café/restaurant, visitor centre and energy centre, along with its associated infrastructure, was turning the site into a tourist visitor attraction. This was of concern. In response, the Head of Planning advised that if approved, the site would provide an additional tourist attraction in Medway on similar lines to that provided elsewhere in Kent, the UK and across Europe.
• A similar application had been submitted to Gravesham Borough Council but had not proceeded and the Committee sought further clarification as to why. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the application submitted to Gravesham included a large industrial building and was not a landscape led application. Concern had also been expressed as to the access and sight lines. The second application had been withdrawn prior to consideration.
• It was suggested that, if approved, Permitted Development Rights be removed and this was supported by the Head of Planning.
• A Member suggested that if the winery was not able to be located in Cuxton to support the vineyard, this could result in greater traffic generation to transport the grapes to an alternative location off site for processing. In response, the Head of Planning reminded the Committee that planning permission was not required for the winery and the applicants had Permitted Development Rights to construct buildings on the land associated with the vineyard for which no planning permission was required. He supported the view of the Member concerned that if the Winery was provided off site, there would be additional traffic generation through Cuxton to transport the grapes from the vineyard for processing.
• Whilst the proposed development looked very attractive architecturally, it was considered that with such a new development taking place within an AONB and with so many conditions to read and understand, many of which had been changed prior to the meeting, it was difficult to understand the impact upon the community living in the nearby village. It was therefore suggested that consideration of the application should be deferred to enable fuller consideration of the application.
• Concern was also expressed that this application, when added to planning application MC19/2814 for a wildlife/water sports and outdoor activity centre along with holiday accommodation in Halling, also for consideration at this meeting would increase the traffic generation in the area.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that if the application was refused, the applicants would have a right of appeal. With the current application, the applicants had shown that they had high aspirations to provide a quality facility on site but if the application were to be refused and the applicants chose to pursue use of Permitted Development Rights as an alternative, the Council would have no control over those elements that had been built into the proposed conditions.

He suggested that if the Committee considered that it would like more information to answer some of the questions raised at this meeting, the Committee could defer the application and have a presentation from the applicants to enable them to answer the Committee’s questions.

This was generally supported by the Committee and it was also suggested that it may be beneficial for the Committee either individually or collectively to visit the site.

Decision:

Consideration of the application be deferred to enable the applicants to participate in a presentation to the Committee specifically to answer questions raised at this meeting and for a site visit be to be arranged.