|
Newsletters
7 June 2011 - The Council's Decision (pdf
74Kb)
I am sure that by now you all know that the Horkesley Park Planning Application
number 090231 submitted by Buntings in February 2009 was refused by the
Colchester Borough Council Planning Committee at their meeting on May
26th. The Councillors voted 11 – 1 for refusal at the end of a
very long and interesting meeting.
The Councillors were primarily judging the Application against the exceptionally
detailed report prepared by their Officers which looked at all the benefits
and disbenefits of the Application. it recommended refusal; they found
that it was contrary to policy at National, Regional and Local level
on many grounds. They took advice from their own consultants, Nathaniel
Lichfield and Partners and Savill, Bird & Axon as well as their own
Strategic Policy and Regeneration department. The Councillors went to
great trouble to assess the Application themselves and the site visit
on the evening of May 24th obviously had a major impact on their decision.
Above all, it was the beauty, peace and tranquillity of the valley to
the north of the site and the idyllic setting of the Grade I Listed All
Saints Church, which would have been engulfed by the development, that
seemed to impress them most. They pointed out that AONB’s are all
about the protection of the existing landscape rather than development
for leisure purposes as is the case for National Parks. As an AONB, the
Dedham Vale has this protection.
Prior to the Councillors’ decision making, both sides gave extensive
presentations. Buntings were represented chiefly by members of the family,
employees and business associates. The opposition was represented by
the Dedham Vale Society, SVAG, CPREssex, Little Horkesley Parish Council,
Nayland Parish Council, Suffolk Preservation Society, Nayland with Wissington
Conservation Society, Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Project and the
Colne Stour Countryside Association. In addition, three individuals made
their own presentations and a letter on Suffolk Punches was read.
We are sure that the consistent opposition to the applications for Horkesley
Park over the last ten years will have had a significant impact on the
Council’s decision on May 26th. As members of SVAG you have played
a great part in this but we must also recognise the support particularly
from the Nayland with Wissington Conservation Society, the Dedham Vale
Society, the Colne Stour Countryside Association, Little Horkesley Parish
Council, CPREssex and many, many other organisations and individuals
too numerous to mention.
At this stage, we do not know what will happen next. We very much hope
that Buntings will accept the overwhelming rejection by the Council and
the community. They do of course have the right of Appeal and other possible
remedies if they think they have sufficient grounds. An Appeal will be
very expensive for the Applicant, the Council Tax payers of Colchester
and, possibly, SVAG and other conservation groups. Let us cross that
bridge when we come to it!
Thank you all for everything you have done over the years to help everybody
achieve this magnificent result !
27 April 2011 - Important dates for your diary (pdf 17Kb)
There
will be meeting at 7.30pm on May 11th in Little Horkesley Village
Hall.
There will be a walk across public footpaths on the site of Horkesley
Park on Sunday May 15th at 11.00am starting from London Road.
Town Hall meeting: May 26th!!
Make sure you are also at the Town Hall by 5.30pm
14
April 2011 - URGENT!! URGENT!! URGENT!! (pdf
21Kb)
Your letters to the Council are due by April 19th. If you have not
already done so, please write or e-mail now!!!
Please see the Horkesley Park Key Issues page
for guidance if you need it. Specifically look at our Newsletter of April
6th 2011 (below).
The Stour Valley Action Group response to this letter is also available
here.
Please be at the Council Meeting at 6.00pm in Colchester Town Hall on
May 26th
6 April 2011 - Horkesley Park Application 090231 (pdf 48Kb)
Colchester Borough Council has now sent letters dated 29th March 2011
to all who originally wrote concerning the HP Application. They invite
comment on recent documents on the CBC web site under the headings of:
- Planning Policy Considerations
- Transport and Traffic issues
- Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments
- “Vision Statement” for the key “Experiences” that
form part of this proposal.
Letters or e-mails relating to these must be received within 21 days
by the Council which means by April 19th. They must reference Application
Number 090231 and should be addressed to:
Mr Alistair Day, Environmental and Protective Services, Colchester Borough
Council, PO Box 889, Rowan House, Colchester CO3 3WG.
They should preferably be sent by e-mail to: planning.services@colchester.gov.uk
Please see the Horkesley Park Key Issues page of our website
for our detailed comments on these, specifically our Newsletter of 27th
January 2011 and our letter to CBC of March 2nd 2011.
In summary, the key points are:
1. Planning Policy Considerations:
The Report of the Strategic Policy and Regeneration (SP&R) department
of the CBC to which this refers, appeared on the CBC web site in January
2011.
It concludes that HP does not meet the very stringent requirements for
a large scale development in open countryside, partially within and adjacent
to an AONB, as covered by National and Local policies. To the extent
that Regional policies have not yet actually been revoked, it is also
considered to be in conflict with these.
We generally welcome and support its findings.
2. Transport and
Traffic issues:
The Savell Bird and Axon report to which this refers was commissioned
by the CBC to consider matters relating to transportation planning
policy. They conclude that:
“the proposed development does not support the aims of National or Local
Policy.”
We welcome and support the findings of the report.
3. Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments:
This refers to the Natural England letter to CBC dated 17th January 2011. In
it they say that:
"Following receipt of further information Natural England believes it may
be possible to design appropriate mitigation into the proposal to sufficiently
ensure that
there would no adverse effects on the features of interest for which the Dedham
Vale AONB is designated. However until it can be demonstrated that the proposed
mitigation measures can be formalized and secured as planning conditions we sustain
our objection of 22nd April 2009.”
We do not agree with their findings and, in our view, even the most rigorous
mitigation measures would be insufficient to prevent seriously adverse impacts
on the Dedham Vale AONB from Horkesley Park and we would encourage you to make
this point very strongly in any letter you may write to the CBC.
There are some helpful points in their letter including the strong point that
Natural England is disappointed that the Transport Assessment has not been revised
to include an investigation of impacts upon the AONB and specifically the narrow
lanes, rather than solely the impacts on highways capacity i.e. „A? roads
as is currently the case.
We have always maintained that the impact on the narrow lanes and
minor
roads
of 485,000 additional visitors would be disastrous and we thoroughly endorse
Natural England’s concern in this respect. Please re-state these concerns
in any letter to CBC.
4. ‘Vision Statement’ for the key ‘Experiences’ that
form
part of this proposal.
There are three long documents which give Buntings? vision as to how the Food
Experience, the Horticultural Experience and the Lecture Theatre, Exhibition
Area etc will all work at Horkesley Park.
The statements for the Food Experience and the Horticultural
Experience, are
an attempt to pretend that „black is white? and that the Food and Horticultural
Experiences are not retail activities. How they can pretend that annual income
of £4.7M from the Food Experience, £1.75M from the Specialist Garden
Centre with a further £2.3M coming from other merchandise sales, is anything
other than retail activity, beggars belief.
We encourage you to read the original documents and to write and say that these
Vision Statements are no more than a thinly disguised attempt to pretend that
HP is not a retail outlet. They must be set to one side and Horkesley Park must
be assessed as no more than an out-of-town retail park for planning purposes.
The statement for the Lecture Theatre, Exhibition Area etc (LTEASR) describes
how this is intended to be used. It makes reference to the LTEASR being available
for occasional evening hire for unspecified events. This open-ended statement
of intent is quite unacceptable and represents potential for major noise and
traffic pollution particularly at weekends when the peace and tranquillity of
the AONB is all-important.
We encourage you to write to this effect.
The LTEASR Document
specifically deals with the question of visitor numbers. It states
that the “The viability of Horkesley Park has been tested by
independent specialist consultants, Sykes Leisure Projects, who have
a great deal of practical experience.” They have estimated 485,000
visitors in the first year of opening.
The whole rationale for Horkesley Park is built on these assumptions
of numbers of visitors and the associated revenue.
If visitor numbers and per capita revenues are wrong then the whole
project must fail and the jobs predicted will not be delivered. It
is certain that they cannot be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.
Other equally professional consultants and bodies come to very different
conclusions to those of Sykes both in respect of visitor numbers and
revenues:
- Nathaniel
Lichfield in their report of March 2010 conclude that “on
its own with the proposed admission fee it is unlikely to achieve 275,000
visitors per annum…”
- The Council’s own Strategy Policy and Regeneration (SP&R)
Department’s
report of 2011 states that “the estimate of 485,000 visitors
annually is extremely ambitious and implies that the proposal
would instantly
capture an equivalent market to Colchester Zoo.”
- Visitor
Attraction Consultants in their Report for the Stour
Valley Action Group state that visitor numbers could be somewhere
between
those of
Castle Howard (200,000) and Shugborough (100,000) and with
reduced entry fees.
- The
Budenberg Eddis report included in the SVAG response of
April 17th 2009 concludes that the highest possible annual
visitor
numbers for Horkesley
Park would be 170,000 per annum. This number has been derived
by comparison with similar attractions as detailed in their
report.
Because of the importance of visitor numbers and associated revenue to
the viability of the whole project, you may wish to include a comment
on this in your letter. We all believe that Horkesley Park has every
potential of being a commercial disaster! What happens then?
Newsflash:
Please look at the Newsflash on
our web site entitled "Horkesley Park: in Search of Enlightenment?",
which may help you write a letter
of response. In a more recent document, Buntings are now seeking to
compare HP with the Eden Project in Cornwall! As anyone who has visited
the Eden project will know, it is a highly original and well- defined
concept housed in stunningly designed buildings, hidden in the countryside
in a vast disused quarry. This is very different from the Horkesley
Park mishmash, sited in open countryside on the crest of one of the
most famous and beautiful valleys in England. All the constituent elements
of Horkesley Park can already be found in the area and, more to the
point, in their present form, they neither exploit, nor threaten to
wreck, the landscape.
Conclusion:
Please write to the CBC on any or all of these points and anything
else of particular concern to you.
Horkesley
Park must be stopped. Watch our website for latest news.
Be
there on May 26th.
21
March 2011 - Planning Committee Meeting date announced: 26th May (pdf
43Kb)
An announcement has been made that the Horkesley Park Planning Application
will be decided at a meeting of the Planning Committee on:
May 26th at 6.00pm, in
Colchester Town Hall
Please make every effort to attend as we need as many people as possible
to demonstrate the overwhelming opposition to this Application. You need
to be at the Town Hall no later than 5.30pm.
The Council will allow a very limited number of people to make representations
at the meeting and we will ask to speak on behalf of SVAG.
It is possible that
the Council will change the arrangements for this meeting and you should
check
on the CBC
website.
They also have a dedicated information line on 01206 507439.
We will also publish
any updates on our website.
We will be making
other preparations for this meeting and it is vital that you monitor
our web site and future emails. If you wish to be included
on our email distribution list, please contact us via the web site.
We will not know the Planning
Officer’s recommendation to Councillors
until a week before the meeting but we must have confidence that they
will follow the recommendations of their own consultants and expert advisors
and reject the Application.
Please
be there on May 26th!
27 January 2011 - Recent Documents concerning Horkesley
Park (pdf 140Kb)
Three important documents have recently come into the Public Domain concerning
Horkesley Park. These are:
- Update
on comments on Horkesley Park (application 090231) from Strategic
Policy and Regeneration (SP&R). Document is undated but appeared on
the CBC web site on January 21st 2011.
- Savell
Bird & Axon, Horkesley Park Planning Application Review. Dated
November 2010. Appeared on web site on January 21st 2011.
- Natural
England letter to CBC dated 17th January 2011.
Some comments on each of these are as follows:
1
Strategic Policy and Regeneration (SP&R ) report:
Strategic Policy and Regeneration Department is a department of Colchester
Borough Council concerned with Planning Policy and consideration of major
Applications against Planning Policy at National, Regional and Local
levels. They have responded before in April 2009 and July 2009 as the
Spatial Policy team. Their report in July 2009 ultimately resulted in
CBC appointing Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners to provide a detailed
analysis of the potential retail impacts of the proposal, including its
impact in policy terms. CBC also appointed Savell, Bird and Axon to provide
a detailed analysis of transport policy issues.
The latest report from SP&R is an up-date of the July 2009 report
and takes into account the Nathaniel Lichfield report and the Savell
Bird and Axon report as well as changes in national, regional and local
policy arising from the publication of PPS4 in December 2009, the change
in Government and subsequent changes to the status of regional strategies;
and the adoption of Colchester Development Plan Policies in October 2010.
It also takes into account the response from Mr Gittins , as the planning
consultant for Bunting & Sons, to the Nathaniel Lichfield report.
The Report retains much of the July 2009 report and is a complex document
that should be read in full from the CBC web site. Our reading of its
conclusions is that it rejects many of the assertions from Mr Gittins.
More importantly, it concludes that the Horkesley Park proposal does
not meet the very stringent requirements for a large development in open
countryside, partially within and adjacent to an AONB, as covered by
National and Local policies. To the extent that Regional Policies have
not yet actually been revoked, it is also considered to be in conflict
with these.
The report appears to be very unhelpful to Bunting and Sons.
2 Savell Bird and Axon Report:
Savell Bird and Axon were appointed by CBC to consider the Horkesley
Park Application in the context of matters relating to transportation
planning policy, access and access by non-car modes. It takes into account
the Nathaniel Lichfield report and responses from the Highways Agency,
Suffolk and Essex County Councils.
The report needs to be read in full and is available on the CBC web site.
In its final Conclusion it states in paragraph 5.2.1
“ The proposed development does not support the aims of National or Local
Policy.”
The rationale for this conclusion is given in the Report.
In the Summary of
findings it makes a number of points including the view that the development
will primarily be accessed by private car
and that the assumptions
of 14% access by coach services are overstated and do not accord with evidence
from other locations and surveys. It also makes the point that the requirements
for free public transport imposed by the Essex County Council report could
cost Buntings up to £500,000 per annum. Many of these services would have to
be provided in perpetuity. (There is no evidence that this has been costed into
the Business Plan and would impact directly on the ‘bottom line’ of
an already fragile plan in our view).
The Report is not helpful to Buntings.
3. Natural England letter to CBC dated 17th January 2011.
The Natural England Letter is a supplement to their original Letter
of 22 April 2009. The letter is not yet on the CBC web site. In their
letter they refer to
Local Policy DP22 which sets out the policy relating to the AONB. They then
say that:
“ Following receipt of further information Natural England believes it
may be possible to design appropriate mitigation into the proposal to sufficiently
ensure that
there would no adverse effects on the features of interest for which the
Dedham Vale AONB is designated. However until it can be demonstrated that the
proposed
mitigation measures can be formalised and secured as planning conditions
we sustain our objection of 22nd April 2009.”
They then set out all the reasons for their views which need to be
read in detail. Two of these are of particular interest:
- They make the
strong point that they are disappointed that the Transport Assessment
has not been revised to include an investigation
of impacts upon
the AONB and
specifically the narrow lanes, rather than solely the impacts on highways
capacity i.e. ‘A’ roads as is currently the case. They express concern that
the proposal will result in increased use of the ‘sunken rural lanes’ roads
around the development site i.e. Boxted Church Road, Park Road, Water Lane
etc, which are within the AONB and often represent the most direct routes between
the proposed Heritage Centre and other attractions in the area. They would
want
to see the impact on these roads assessed in the Transport Assessment.
- They state that
nearly two years have passed since previous consultation on the application.
As a result, they consider the protected species
surveys within
the EIA to be out of date and they recommend that re-surveys are
provide prior to determination of the application. They are concerned in particular about the
Great Crested Newts survey which was only just in date when the application was
submitted in 2009. It appears that someone has indicated that that there may
be a population adjacent to the proposed site.
Other matters:
There is no indication yet of a date for the Council hearing. We
are in regular touch with the Planning Office and will advise you
as soon as we have more definite
information. We will need all the help and support we can get when this does
come up.
10
October 2010 - Status of Horkesley Park Application No 090231 (pdf
143Kb)
We believe that the whole Horkesley Park will in all likelihood
come to a head within the next few months– but then we have
been saying that since last December!
We have been in regular touch with the Colchester Borough Council
Planning Officers and they advise us that they are now bringing all
the documentation together and expect it to come before the Planning
Committee of the Council in the near future.
Now we need you! When this happens, we must have maximum attendance from you
all at the Council meeting to demonstrate our absolute opposition to this desecration
of the countryside.
We do not know what the Planning Officers’ recommendation to Councillors
will be, but must presume that they will take note of the strong grounds for
rejection from their own consultants, Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners (NLP)
and their own Spatial Policy team who also recommended rejection.
To remind you of activities over the last ten months:
- In
December 2009, CBC commissioned a report into certain aspects of
the Application from NLP. They responded in March 2010 but
the report was not made publicly
available until July 2010. The Report was very unfavourable to Buntings
and a summary of their findings is given in our update
of July 2010.
- Buntings produced a 406 page response to the NLP report dated July
13th 2010 seeking to contest its conclusions.
- SVAG wrote a detailed response to the Buntings’ document
and in support of the NLP Report. Our letter was dated August 31st
2010 and is available in
full on our web site above.
- Essex Highways finally concluded their response on traffic issues
in their letter of July 6th 2010. They raised no objection but
imposed very
onerous
public transport requirements which would seriously affect the
financial viability of the Application. They made no comment
on the status of the
Fishponds Hill
Protected Lane. We contested this in our letter of July 27th
2010 which has been acknowledged and a response is awaited.
- Suffolk
Highways originally recommended rejection in their letter of April
2009. They changed their position in their letter
of May
2010 and
we wrote
and contested this.
- There
has been a steady stream of letters in the local press from many
of our members which have been most
helpful.
SVAG’s position
regarding the Horkesley Park Application is fully set out in our letter
to Colchester Borough Council of April
17th 2009.
The Application must be rejected because:
- Horkesley Park would cause irreparable damage to the peace and tranquillity
of the Dedham Vale AONB through the impact of an additional projected
485,000 visitors annually.
- It is contrary to national and local planning policy.
- It is a retail development with over 75% of projected revenues
coming from the garden centre, restaurants, food sales and other
merchandising.
- Whatever the Traffic authorities say to the contrary, the impact
of cars associated with 485,000 visitors on local lanes and
villages would
be quite unacceptable.
- The countryside is free for all to access through the myriad
of footpaths, bridleways and public areas that exist in
the Dedham Vale. Why should
people be asked to pay for something that is already freely
available?
- There is no demonstrated need for the development. All
the elements of the plan are available elsewhere in the
region.
- There is no ‘heritage’ asset at Horkesley Park that
could possibly justify the development.
- We have demonstrated that it is almost certainly not
commercially viable as proposed. Any claims for job
creation numbers
must therefore be
set aside.
The Council has received
1307 well reasoned letters and e-mails of objection
compared with only 445 letters and e-mails of
support. Organisations
to object include Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Joint Advisory
Committee, Dedham Vale Society, CPR Essex, Suffolk Preservation Society,
English
Heritage, Natural England, National Trust, Gainsborough’s House
Museum, Colne Stour Association, Soil Association, Nayland with Wissington
Conservation Society, Essex Ramblers, Babergh District Council, Parish
Councils of Great Horkesley, Little Horkesley, Nayland with Wissington,
Boxted, Stoke-by-Nayland, Leavenheath, Alphamstone and Lamarsh.
Buntings still claim that their petition of 22000 signature obtained
before the application was submitted from their Suffolk Punch road show
should be counted. Our view is that this is manifest nonsense as these
signatures only showed support for the Suffolk Punch and cannot have
had anything to do with the Horkesley Park application as submitted.
We have made strong representations to the Council on this issue.
Horkesley Park must be rejected. We need you support at the Planning
Committee hearing and will advise you as soon as we know the date.
25
March 2010 - Be Prepared to Repel Horkesley Park!!! (pdf
29Kb)
We need YOU
at the Council hearing to demonstrate to Councillors how strong the
opposition is.
Watch our website
for details of date etc
Make sure we
have your e-mail address by writing to:
info@stourvalleyactiongroup.org.uk
We will also
send out another newsletter.
Contact Alison Shaw
on ostshaw@aol.com if
you can help.
3 March
2010 - Horkesley Park Application No 090231 nears boiling point! (pdf
30Kb)
Since
I last wrote to you in December there have been a number of developments
concerning Horkesley Park.
In order
to prepare for this, we have decided to call a Meeting of SVAG membership
and others who are in opposition to the Horkesley Park Proposal. We very much hope that you will be able to come and give us your full
support. After nearly nine years it looks as if the whole issue is finally
coming to a head!
3
February 2010 - Developments on the Application (pdf
20KB)
We have
been advised that Colchester Borough Council has appointed Nathaniel
Lichfield and Partners (NLP) as Consultants to
assist them with consideration of various aspects of the Horkesley Park
Proposal
including the Retail Statement, the Socio Economic statement and the
Tourism Business Case.
15
December 2009 - There remains no date to hear this Application as
Buntings still have not submitted the information required (pdf
24Kb)
Colchester
Borough Council Planning Office are still waiting for answers
to questions raised
by the Highways Agency in May 2009 and various other issues raised by
the CBC. We have written to all Councillors on the Planning Committee again
to remind them of the key issues about which we are concerned. A
copy of this letter is available here (pdf
28Kb)
1
November 2009 - There
is still no date to hear this Application (pdf
21KB)
I last wrote to you in September on the Horkesley Park developments.
Since then there have been very few developments in the public domain. We continue to keep
in close touch with the Colchester Borough Council Planning Office.
18 September 2009 - No date set for hearing the Application. (pdf
20Kb)
There has not been much to report on the Horkesley Park
developments for some weeks but we continue to be very active on your
behalf.
1 May
2009 - The deadline for letters to CBC is now past. The planning department
are preparing their planning report for Councillors. (pdf 34Kb)
Thank you all for your hard work in the last few weeks.
In particular, the Committee and I would like to thank everyone who has
written a letter of objection to Colchester Borough Council, and everyone
who turned up in their cars or on foot at the Easter Monday Rally and
made such a powerful point about what Horkesley Park might mean to all
of us! It was a huge success and made excellent headlines!
The
deadline for letters to CBC is now passed, and the Council is still
counting. At the last estimate, we
believe that well over 940 individual
and original letters of objection had been received and only about 450
in support. The letters – some of which are extensive and deeply
argued – can be read on the CBC website (www.colchester.gov.uk/planning ). Everyone who wrote a letter should receive a response from CBC in
the next few weeks; if you do not receive a response, do please check
the website and see that your letter has been received and correctly
logged as an objection.
We have
had a very successful poster campaign which can best be judged by the
strenuous attempts of others to take them down! Now that the official
consultation period is at an end, we have been asked by Colchester
Borough Council to remove them from outside houses etc. Please make
sure that you do this by May 10th or you may be in breach of local
by-laws and subject to possible fines! This should apply on both sides
of the County border as we have received a similar request from Babergh
District Council. Posters inside houses and cars are not affected if
you wish to keep them up. A letter from Mr Vincent Pearce, Planning
Services Manager is on the Campaign page of
our website.
SVAG’s
own detailed letter of objection can now be read on our website Horkesley
Park Key Issues page. In order to give real ‘weight’ to
our response on your behalf, we engaged the services of Dalton Warner
Davis
LLP
as
Planning
Consultants
and Visitor Attraction Consultants to look at the underlying figures
as well as detailed help from our members. In brief the conclusions
from our report are as follows:
- The
Application is contrary to the whole ethos of government and local
planning policy and must be rejected on these grounds alone.
- The Application would compromise the peace and tranquillity of
the AONB in a totally unacceptable way.
- No overriding national need has been established for the Application.
(Such ‘need’ has to be established for it to receive
approval; this has not been done.)
- Over 75% of revenues in the Applicant’s Business Plan come from
retail activities. The Application is a retail development and must be
treated as such in the assessment of its conformance or otherwise with
Planning Law.
- The projection of visitor numbers is grossly overstated. Our
expert’s
view is that, as a visitor centre, it is unlikely to attract more than
150,000 visitors by its third year of operation.
- Any reasonable estimate for visitor numbers and per capita
spend results in massive losses for the Proposal. Horkesley
Park is
not viable as a
Heritage and Conservation Centre.
- We conclude that the Proposal is no more than a thinly disguised
attempt to get planning permission for the buildings and
infrastructure for a
shopping village using the disguise of a visitor attraction.
- Because of the demonstrated lack of financial viability
of the Proposal the promised creation of 155FTE jobs
on site
cannot be relied on in any
way. The actual number of new jobs on site is likely
to be much
less than 100 even when it is mature.
- Second and third order jobs created in the wider economy
are not real and cannot be demonstrated. They must
be discounted.
- The potential for job creation in itself must not be
a reason to override all other planning considerations.
- The Proposal is contrary to national, regional and
local policy in respect of traffic issues. The
local road infrastructure
is not sufficient
to cope with the influx of the Applicant’s predicted 480,000 visitors
per annum.
- The Application would generate at least an additional
3000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per annum from
visitors’ car journeys alone. The
Applicant has not assessed the overall carbon footprint of the development.
- There are serious architectural shortcomings
in the Application which have health and safety
implications.
We encourage you to read the SVAG Response in full. The appendices
include the Dalton Warner Davis report, the expert analyses
of the tourism potential of Horkesley Park by experienced independent
tourist
consultants, and an analysis of the Buntings’ business
plan by two SVAG members who have senior positions in the Financial
Sector.
You will also be pleased to know that CBC has received letters
of objection from the following organisations:
- Parish Councils of Little Horkesley, Great Horkesley, Stoke-by-Nayland,
Boxted, Langham, Nayland with Wissington, and Leavenheath
- Babergh District Council
The Environment Agency
- Natural England
- The National Trust
- Gainsborough’s House
- The Dedham Vale AONB and Stour Valley Joint Advisory
Committee
- The Dedham Vale Society
- The Colne Stour Association
- Suffolk Preservation Society
- CPRE Essex
- Dr John Constable
- Dr Ronald Blythe
- The
Nayland with Wissington Conservation Society
- 20
local farmers
- 32
local small businesses
South Suffolk MP,
Tim Yeo, has also come out forcefully against the Application and has
requested that it be ‘Called In’ for
determination by the Secretary of State. We are also informed that Bernard
Jenkin, MP for North Essex will seek to get the Application ‘called
in’.
The decision, however, is not made yet. You can still influence it
by making your views felt through the democratic process. Please
continue
to spread the message to your friends and neighbours, and take the
time – if
you haven’t already – to lobby or write to the following:
- to
your local borough councillor, county councillor, and parish councillor
- to
your MP:
Bernard Jenkin MP (North Essex)
at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA - email: JENKINBC@parliament.uk
or Bob Russell MP (Colchester)
at Magdalen Hall, Wimpole Road, Colchester CO1 2DE - email: brooksse@parliament.uk
or Tim Yeo MP (Suffolk South)
at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA - email: timyeomp@parliament.uk
- to
your local newspapers,
local radio and local TV
We are in touch with
the CBC. The Planning Department are preparing their report for Councillors
and we will advise you as soon as we know when it will come before
them for determination. When this happens we will need all your support
to make our views known! In the unlikely event that they do decide
to support it, it would then have to go to the Regional Office of Government
(‘Go East’) for a decision which could result in a Public
Enquiry. This could take months and we are prepared to fight it all
the way!
We have another major event planned in June and will give you details
in due course!
Keep up the fight and we will stop this dreadful potential blot on
our landscape!
Thank you for all your support
Will Pavry Chairman, Stour Valley Action Group.
Note: We have been told by Mr Daniel Bunting that some of their cattle
got out of a field on Easter Monday, where the gate was unfortunately
not padlocked. We have reassured him that we do not believe this
was a deliberate act by a SVAG member and that we would never condone
any
such action.
6
March 2009 - New planning application for Horkesley Park Heritage
and Conservation
Centre
(pdf 137Kb)
Bunting
and Sons have re-submitted their Planning Application, number 090231,
for their London Road site for the fourth
time since April 2001. This Newsletter sets out the chief issues as
we see them and some key facts from the Application.
You have a right to see the Proposal in full at the CBC offices
in Angel Court, High St Colchester. You can also see
details on the
Colchester Borough Council website on www.colchester.gov.uk/planning
and you can
request a copy on CD for which you will have to pay.
1
November 2007 - Status of planning applications (pdf
24Kb)
1 Recent
Applications: Brewery and mobile homes for
permanent accommodation.
2 Status
on Horkesley Park proposal.
23
September 2007 - Buntings recent applications (pdf 31Kb)
Buntings have
submitted retrospective Planning Applications for two of their activities
on the London Road site that have been on-going for
some time; Mobile
homes for Permanent Accommodation and Pitfield micro-brewery.
Buntings lost their
appeal against a decision by the Babergh District Council in July 2006
requiring them
to remove lighting from the Anchor Inn. In their appeal Buntings
indicated that they needed the lighting to attract passing trade. Would
the same apply to Horkesley Park?
20
April 2007– Buntings
announce a series of ‘consultation’ events (pdf
25Kb)
Rosenthal
Lecture: In association with the Nayland and Wiston
Conservation Society, we are holding a lecture in Nayland Village
Hall on Thursday,May 17th
at 7.30pm
entitled:
"Who
owns Constable's Country". After
six years of existence, this will be our first fundraising event.
e-mail: We are trying to build up our e-mail data base for speed and cost of
communication. Please send your e-mail to info@stourvalleyactiongroup.org.uk
and we will add you to our list.
Widen
the message: Please let your friends and acquaintances see this letter and encourage
them to join us. This letter and all our information and how to join
is on our web site at www.stourvalleyactiongroup.org.uk.
24
February 2007– Buntings
will re-submit again (pdf
28Kb)
Buntings have told us that they are nearly ready to re-submit their planning
application for the Horkesley Park Heritage and Conservation Centre. SVAG now has in place village co-ordinators throughout the Stour valley
who will be distributing leaflets and posters and we would ask you to
help in distributing and displaying these resources.
October
2006 – Latest
situation (pdf
10Kb)
A meeting of SVAG members was held in Great Horkesley Village Hall on
September 19th 2006 attended by over 120 people from all surrounding
villages. Strong opposition for the plans continues to be expressed from
a very wide cross-section of the community.
10
April 2006 – Buntings
withdraw again (pdf 38Kb)
Bunting’s Application withdrawn on the basis that ‘they want
to do further work’. Any re-submitted Application will be treated
as a new Application and will therefore be subject to the same consultation
process as the September 2005 Application and under a new number.
This
includes Highlights of the 2005/6 SVAG campaign. This is
a thorough summary of the previous campaign and we encourage you to look
at the full text.
|