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:

1. 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.
2. 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.