Agenda item

Cuxton and Halling Ward

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 reminded the Committee that this application had originally been considered by the Committee at its meeting on 8 December 2021, following which the application had been deferred to enable the Committee to visit the application site and participate in a question and answer (Q&A) session with the applicant to clarify a number of issues raised at the meeting in December.

The Head of Planning reminded the Committee that the site visit had taken place on 15 January 2022 and Members and officers had walked the application site and visited the junction of Bush Rd and the A228.

The Q & A session had taken place on 22 February 2022 allowing the Committee to ask questions of the applicant for clarification on the issues raised at the meeting on 8 December 2021.

The Head of Planning then outlined the planning application in detail and informed the Committee that since despatch of the agenda, the applicant had submitted a Briefing Note for the Committee summarising the benefits of the proposal and a Highways Technical Note. Both documents were appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

He further advised that Cuxton Parish Council on behalf of residents who objected to the proposal had emailed the Committee two documents titled ‘A Community Insight for Medway Planning Committee’ dated 7 February 2022 and ‘Supplementary Community Information for Medway Planning Committee’ dated March 2022. Both were also appended to the supplementary agenda advice sheet.

The Committee was also informed that an additional 341 objections had been received since the Planning Committee meeting on 8 December 2021 and of these, 175 had been received via an on-line auto-generated proforma created by objectors.  Given the nature of these representations, they were being treated by the Local Planning Authority as a petition.

An additional 231 letters of support had been received since the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8 December 2021. Of these 225 had been received via an on-line auto-generated proforma created by the applicant. Again, given the nature of these representations, they were being treated by the Local Planning Authority as a petition. However, it had been brought to the attention of the Local Planning Authority that by using the online auto generated proforma, the applicant had opened themselves to its misuse and potential fraudulent submissions from unknown sources and to prevent this, the applicants had switched off this representation tool on 17 February 2022. It was confirmed that the numbers reported did not include those representations of support that had been identified as fraudulent.

The Head of Planning 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.

He reminded the Committee that in determining the planning application, the Committee was required to consider the application on its planning merits having regard to all the information available and to determine the application based on an assessment of this information.

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. He explained the design and that the majority of the building associated with this proposed development would be built underground within the site.

The Committee was informed that the Kent 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 both the applicant and officers were satisfied with this suggestion.

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 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 development has been identified as inappropriate for the area as it has now been identified as requiring submission to the Secretary of State if recommended for approval.
• Whilst residents were not opposed to the operation of the vineyard, it was the commercial element of the project that gave rise to concern as this would have a detrimental impact upon the village of Cuxton.

The Committee discussed the application and the points raised by the Ward Councillor and the Head of Planning confirmed that following the Committee on 8 December 2021, further legal advice had been provided as to whether the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This was considered balanced but, due to the provision of the visitor centre and café/restaurant which would measure more than 1000 sq m, it had been considered that the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore, if approved, the application would be referred to the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2021.

The Committee discussed the proposed development and a summary of the points raised and officer responses is set out below:

• The proposed 106 funding was considered inadequate to mitigate the impact of the development in particular the increase in traffic generation through Cuxton. In response, the Head of Planning advised that the Section 106 funding requested must comply with the CiL regulations and in that respect was required to relate to the development.

• Concern that the development would have a detrimental impact upon the dark skies in Cuxton and on wildlife and habitats. The Head of Planning advised that this was addressed under proposed condition 11.
• Concern that there would be a detrimental impact on wildlife generally including badger setts. In response, the Head of Planning advised of the biodiversity net gains that would be achieved resulting from this application for both habitats and hedgerows.
• Concern that there would be a detrimental impact on the ancient woodland. The Head of Planning confirmed that the woodland was designated as ‘plantation’ woodland and not ancient woodland. The Senior Planner advised that the development would have ecological merits with 28,000sq m of new tree planting to mitigate against 1251 sq m which would be lost.
• The development would result in an unacceptable increase in traffic through Cuxton as it was estimated that the development would attract 65,000 visitors per year. This could result in conflict with increased vehicular traffic and pedestrians and those on cycles. It could also lead to a potential increase in on-street parking in Cuxton village. In response, the Head of Planning advised that tours of the winery would need to be pre-booked and therefore visitors could not just turn up and take part in a tour. However, visitors could visit the café or walk/cycle to the site. He advised that the applicants would be providing bus links to and from the railway stations for visits to the tour.
• Processing of the grapes could be undertaken at an alternative location off site which would not impact on the quality of the grapes. In response, the Head of Planning advised that to process the grapes off site would significantly increase the generation of lorry movements on Bush Road.
• This development forms more than a winery and aims to provide a major commercial tourist attraction. The Head of Planning confirmed that 92% of the site was agricultural use.
• The Kent Downs Area for Outstanding Natural Beauty Unit (ANOB) has provided robust objections to the application due to its impact on the ANOB. The Head of Planning advised that upon initial receipt of the application the Kent Downs ANOB Unit had been involved in discussions on the application and as a result, the proposed design had been developed to keep impact to a minimum.
• Concern as to the access/egress at the junction of Bush Road and the impact that increased traffic generated by the development would have on the junction. The Principal Transport Planner advised that the Parking Management Plan would remain a ‘live’ document and would be reviewed once the facility was operational. He confirmed that the applicants had taken on board concerns relating to traffic generation during peak hours of the school runs and were seeking to avoid opening the café or operating tours during these periods.
• The design of the proposed building, being 85% underground was iconic, of particular merit and better than the applicants could decide to provide under Permitted Development Rights.
• The countryside in Kent is evolving and in particular attracting wine production.
• The project will attract 50 additional jobs, thus creating employment opportunities.
• Concern as the size and maturity of trees to be planted as part of the scheme. In response, the Head of Planning advised that if approved, the applicants would be required to submit landscaping details to the Local Planning Authority and the Council’s Tree Officer would assess the species and sizes of the trees to be provided.
• Concern that to approve this application may send messages to developers that Medway is prepared to allow development on land in an ANOB.
• If approved, what level of information would be submitted to the Secretary of State. In response the Head of Planning advised that the Secretary of State would be provided with all information that had been submitted concerning the application, including all objections and minutes of meetings of the Committee.
• The importance of giving weight to the concerns of those who live in Cuxton Village particularly as the village is unique in that it only has one road in and out namely Bush Road. This would be the road used by all those who would be visiting the site if the application was to be approved.

The Head of Planning and Principal Transport Planner referred to the concerns raised relating to the highway and cautioned against using the highway as a reason for refusal if the application was not to be approved. They explained that if the application was refused and was the subject of appeal, officers would need to provide evidence to justify the reasons for refusal and, if this could not be provided, the Planning Inspector could award costs against the Council. The Principal Transport Planner advised that based on the projected vehicular movements, it was considered that it would be challenging to defend a refusal reason on highway grounds.

In summary, whilst noting that this application had generated a strength of opinion and a high level of concern by local residents, it needed to be recognised that there was an existing agricultural use at this site, namely a vineyard. Should the applicants therefore decide to process the grapes off site, this would generate a significant increased level of traffic through Cuxton village and should the processing of grapes be handled on site without the benefit of the commercial element of the development, this would require functional buildings to be provided which would not be to the standard of the buildings proposed as part of this planning application.

Following debate, it was moved and seconded that the application be approved subject to referral to the Secretary of State, a Section 106 agreement as outlined in the Committee report and conditions 1 – 38 but on being put to the vote this motion was not supported.

In accordance with Council rule 12.6, Councillors Buckwell, Curry, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Price, Thorne and Van-Dyke requested that their votes against be recorded.

In accordance with Council rule 12.6, Councillor Browne requested that her vote to abstain be recorded.

It was then moved and seconded that the application be refused on the ground that the proposed development would have a severe adverse impact upon the ANOB in particular on the wilderness and tranquillity of the area and would impact on the character and uniqueness of the community in Cuxton with the Head of Planning being granted delegated powers to approve the final wording of the refusal ground in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson.

On being put to the vote this motion was approved.

Decision: 

Refused on the grounds that the proposed development would have a severe adverse impact upon the ANOB in particular on the wilderness and tranquillity of the area and would impact on the character and uniqueness of the community in Cuxton with the Head of Planning being granted delegated powers to approve the final wording of the refusal ground in consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and Opposition Spokesperson.

In accordance with Council rule 12.6, Councillors Buckwell, Curry, Howcroft-Scott, Hubbard, Price, Thorne and Van-Dyke requested that their votes in favour be recorded.

In accordance with Council rule 12.6, Councillor Browne requested that her vote to abstain be recorded.