Horkesley Park plans refused

5:50pm Thursday 28th February 2013 in News

Horkesley Park plans refused Horkesley Park plans refused

Colchester Council has refused plans to a multi-million pound heritage centre in the Dedham Vale.

Plans to build the Stour Valley Visitor Centre at Horkesley Park were refused by 10 votes to four.

350 people attended the 4h 45min meeting at Charter Hall.

Speaking afterwards, Kate Bunting, of applicants Bunting & Sons, said: "We are extremely disappointed.

“The council’s own planning officers found the proposals to be robust.

“We are mystified councillors have ignored the evidence.”

Stephen Bunting, a senior partner at the firm, added the business plans to appeal the decision as soon as official confirmation is received.

See Friday's Gazette for a special report. 

Comments(42)

Hamiltonandy says...
10:57pm Thu 28 Feb 13

If only Buntings had just said they were just planning a unique art gallery that would bring great kudos to Colchester Council. Perhaps adding it would be designed by an American well known for using weird materials and wacky structures.
.

.

.

Report this post »

Boris says...
11:30pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Great news, good to know the planning committee were not prepared in this instance to be bullied by their planning officers. And at least one Tory must have voted against, for there are five of them, and only four votes were in favour. Most unusual, because normally they vote as a compact bloc.
Now stand by for the appeal by the desperate Buntings.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
11:34pm Thu 28 Feb 13

Of course the applicant will appeal, but this will cost CBC a lot less money than losing a Public Inquiry (and the result will be the same).

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
7:10am Fri 1 Mar 13

Only 350 people????

That place seats 1200 and it was standing room only. Did you run out of fingers and toes?

Report this post »

wellnow says...
9:17am Fri 1 Mar 13

What a great pity.still l suppose thats democracy at work.l hope they dont appeal.the legal beagles have quaffed at this trough quite enough.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
9:23am Fri 1 Mar 13

wellnow wrote:
What a great pity.still l suppose thats democracy at work.l hope they dont appeal.the legal beagles have quaffed at this trough quite enough.
What where the grounds for refusal?

If they are not water tight then they will appeal and probably win especially as the planning officers advise to accept the application.

Yes I can see a very expensive bill for the Council Tax payers.

Report this post »

missy83 says...
9:55am Fri 1 Mar 13

well everyone has their own opinions and views and here is mine! i am backing horkesley park all the way, it is a great opportunity and it's just what this village needs for people of every generation and would be a fantastic day out for families. is wanted is needed in my opinion!

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
10:55am Fri 1 Mar 13

I attended the rather lengthy meeting last night and am relieved to say that despite the council's attempts to steer the Planning Committee towards accepting the proposals, most of the Committee showed a reassuring amount of concern and common sense. The reasons for refusal were so many I can't list them, but the main ones were that it was unviable and also it would damage the AONB by bringing more traffic to Flatford and Dedham. The Highways chap was discredited when he admitted that his "extensive" traffic analysis took absolutely no account of Sat Nav systems!
Still a great outcome and a victory for common sense.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
11:13am Fri 1 Mar 13

missy83 wrote:
well everyone has their own opinions and views and here is mine! i am backing horkesley park all the way, it is a great opportunity and it's just what this village needs for people of every generation and would be a fantastic day out for families. is wanted is needed in my opinion!
My only previous experience of the Buntings is the Anchor pub, which indeed employed many people, they had a seemingly endless supply of Australians and Eastern Europeans and even a nice girl from California at one point, so do not assume that many of the 60 jobs at Horkesley Park would have been filled by local people.
I have 2 children and cannot see how it would be a great day out for families. The £50 entry fee for a family would deter most, but what is there to interest children, paintings? history of agriculture? history of the Buntings family? Chinese garden? the only fraw would be the petting area and we can do that for free with a zoo gold card, or much cheaper at Hollow Trees farm or Easton Farm Park.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
11:34am Fri 1 Mar 13

James Mercer wrote:
I attended the rather lengthy meeting last night and am relieved to say that despite the council's attempts to steer the Planning Committee towards accepting the proposals, most of the Committee showed a reassuring amount of concern and common sense. The reasons for refusal were so many I can't list them, but the main ones were that it was unviable and also it would damage the AONB by bringing more traffic to Flatford and Dedham. The Highways chap was discredited when he admitted that his "extensive" traffic analysis took absolutely no account of Sat Nav systems!
Still a great outcome and a victory for common sense.
Thanks for the update.

Report this post »

Boris says...
12:27pm Fri 1 Mar 13

TheCaptain wrote:
James Mercer wrote:
I attended the rather lengthy meeting last night and am relieved to say that despite the council's attempts to steer the Planning Committee towards accepting the proposals, most of the Committee showed a reassuring amount of concern and common sense. The reasons for refusal were so many I can't list them, but the main ones were that it was unviable and also it would damage the AONB by bringing more traffic to Flatford and Dedham. The Highways chap was discredited when he admitted that his "extensive" traffic analysis took absolutely no account of Sat Nav systems!
Still a great outcome and a victory for common sense.
Thanks for the update.
If you check "latest update tweets" on the same page, with timestamps late yesterday evening, you will see a few of the reasons for refusal. No doubt there will be more in to-day's printed paper.
And if you wait a week or so, you can check the CBC website and read the minutes of the meeting, which will set out the reasons for refusal in full. These will no doubt be used in turn by the Bunting family in deciding whether or not to appeal.
But if the Buntings have got any sense, they will cut their losses and concentrate on farming, which is the best possible use of their land.

Report this post »

Ann F essex says...
12:34pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Sadly i was unable to attend the meeting last night. I think the park will be a good thing for the area, i grow up in horkesly and found it was hard to get local job without going into colchester and beyond. it will help bring more trade to local shops and bisiness. There will bring more jobs to the area for peolpe with a wide range of skils.
lets hope the appeal is a success.

Report this post »

Jess Jephcott says...
12:38pm Fri 1 Mar 13

What a crazy decision. Colchester has no interest in heritage and this is yet another nail in the coffin. A victory for the Philistines.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
1:02pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Jess Jephcott wrote:
What a crazy decision. Colchester has no interest in heritage and this is yet another nail in the coffin. A victory for the Philistines.
Interesting view that heritage involves turning the countryside into a museum, in a handy little package for our kids to absorb, then jump back in their cars and pop off home.
Opposing the turning of an AONB from agricultural use to a brown field leisure site seems to be more about heritage in my opinion.

Report this post »

KendallDawn says...
1:44pm Fri 1 Mar 13

I attended the meeting and listened carefully to the evidence and debate between Councillors and Officers with interest. If someone could enlighten me as to why the Building Control Service Manager was so desperate to get the plans through he interrupted the attempts by the Chair for a vote eight times, I would be most grateful. The most compelling reason for refusal was given when the simple question: Does this breach planning policy? Was answered No. I was also deeply troubled by the viability question and the issue of a worst case scenario, where agricultural land would have been converted into D2 Leisure use, prompting the further application for development. The officers need to look very carefully at their processes and decision making methodology to consider why the application even got to the committee in the first place. Let's hope they do.

No doubt, the Horksley Park team will spin this as a victory, as the decision was 11 to 1 last time, now 8 to 4. If playing a long game, they will expect to eventually get it through.

Special credit should be given to the Chair, Theresa Higgins, who managed the whole meeting particularly well. And the performance of Cllrs Cable, Offen and Cook all deserve credit. They approached the decision professionally and with intelligence. I am sorry that the same could not be said for the officers.

Report this post »

Bert_Stimpson says...
2:39pm Fri 1 Mar 13

The developer will appeal and threaten legal action. The Council will say they can't take financial risk of losing a legal battle and therefore give in. Project will go ahead. It's Col U training ground all over again...

Report this post »

SOMETHING2SAY says...
2:57pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Thats it...bring the kids in...who poss have no clue what the parents are on about ! Just an excuse to bunk homework...paint / glitter it up...and breach " bedtime" rulings !! SAD

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
2:59pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Bert_Stimpson wrote:
The developer will appeal and threaten legal action. The Council will say they can't take financial risk of losing a legal battle and therefore give in. Project will go ahead. It's Col U training ground all over again...
Lots of difference really. There was no legal reason to not allow the changes to the training ground. The impact on roads is very minor.

Horkesley Park may have been turned down within planning law and would have had a big impact on that part of Colchester, whether good or bad.

I'm sure an appeal will come and that planning will eventually be approved.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
3:03pm Fri 1 Mar 13

I don't think that eventual success is inevitable. Any change of use of an AONB is completely different from any other application. Even if it was approved I am under the impression it would be called in to be decided at national level.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
3:10pm Fri 1 Mar 13

James Mercer wrote:
I don't think that eventual success is inevitable. Any change of use of an AONB is completely different from any other application. Even if it was approved I am under the impression it would be called in to be decided at national level.
I'm working on the assumption that generally business and money overides local opinion. Perhaps the AONB will make a difference.

I've only looked at some bits of the argument but isn't most of the building work outside of the ANOB, So the change of use is from farm land / countryside to country park?

I think the only thing we can be sure of is that this will run on for years and eventually be decided by central government. I guess the lawyers are laughing.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
3:26pm Fri 1 Mar 13

It wasn't clear from the meeting, but I understood that it was a change of use for all the land, whether inside or out of the AONB. The Chinese Garden is inside the AONB and is walled with a building in it.
Shame the taxpayers aren't laughing!

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
3:50pm Fri 1 Mar 13

I think Vincent Pearce should be investigated as it was clear from last nights meeting and comments/actions made before the meeting that he was not impartial.

All against the 4 very expensive tax payer funded reports.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
4:19pm Fri 1 Mar 13

James Mercer wrote:
It wasn't clear from the meeting, but I understood that it was a change of use for all the land, whether inside or out of the AONB. The Chinese Garden is inside the AONB and is walled with a building in it.
Shame the taxpayers aren't laughing!
Thanks again for the info.

As you say whatever happens we are all going to be paying for this.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
4:29pm Fri 1 Mar 13

No problem, I dread to think how much taxpayers money has already gone into this.
I have to say that everyone who spoke last night against the application did really well and thanks should be given to Will Pavry and his team, for having the resilience to fight this.
Complacency is the enemy!

Report this post »

Reginald47 says...
4:53pm Fri 1 Mar 13

What a great shame. The NIMBYS win again as they so often do.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
5:07pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Reginald47 wrote:
What a great shame. The NIMBYS win again as they so often do.
Common sense won Reggie my friend!
You will have to look for your "pre-packaged country experience" elsewhere for the moment.
However, what you could do is pop down to Nayland for a walk by the river, take a trip to Hollesley to see the Suffolk Punches, go to Flatford to find out about Constable, go to Ipswich to see some original paintings, I hear the zoo are opening a Japanese garden, so that one's covered too.
I know this takes a bit of imagination, but give it a go, see if you can surprise yourself.

Report this post »

Naylander1982 says...
5:11pm Fri 1 Mar 13

How can people, genuinely unbiased in their view on this (Bunting family friends, "business associates" etc need not apply) actually fall for the whole heritage/preservatio
n pretense?

It's a greed-conceived business venture.

Utterly astounding that it's still going, clearly the Buntings are a very hungry bunch, HOORAY for those standing in their way quite frankly.

Report this post »

Naylander1982 says...
5:13pm Fri 1 Mar 13

James Mercer I think I love you.
Fancy a pint at the Anchor? ;)

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
5:18pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Naylander1982 wrote:
James Mercer I think I love you. Fancy a pint at the Anchor? ;)
I hope you're a girl!

I go to the Anchor quite a bit, I'll wear a pink carnation next time.

Report this post »

Naylander1982 says...
5:21pm Fri 1 Mar 13

This could be awkward...

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
5:28pm Fri 1 Mar 13

In that case I may have to ditch the Pink Carnation!

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
6:43pm Fri 1 Mar 13

Reginald47 wrote:
What a great shame. The NIMBYS win again as they so often do.
Nimbys! It took over 20 comments for that word to pop up, (and it does you no credit, sir), but we did have a Philistines from JJ. So often the people who speak up to protect our heritage are the ones who are called most names.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
6:47pm Fri 1 Mar 13

"I'm working on the assumption that generally business and money overides local opinion."

Indeed, that was part of the Planning Service argument, by wrongly interpreting NPPF20 to mean that any business could over-ride the local plan.

Report this post »

Hamiltonandy says...
10:50pm Fri 1 Mar 13

I heard from legal sources that the Buntings have spent over £1.5million on plans, legal expenses, consultants and generous contributions to no doubt worthy causes. Previous figure was estimated at £1million two planning applications ago but the Buntings cannot see any alternative to going on and on.
.
The original Buntings thoughts were to turn some of the118 acres of agricultural land into high value commercial land. Essentially the land would be worth 10-20 times the agricultural value. Unfortunately so much time has passed on hopeless planning applications that it may be difficult to recover the wasted money.even if they win eventually.
.
If Buntings theme park becomes unviable the obvious next stage would be to gradually turn it into a straight retail development. Claims of huge job creation would ensure council support.
.
This interminable saga has been so depressing both in the wasted time and money. It is sad to see a family being pulled apart because of one persons uncompromising vision.
.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
12:33am Sat 2 Mar 13

Interesting that the potential change in status to "previously developed land", which would make it more commercially valuable, was only mentioned in the amendment sheet, not in the original report.

Report this post »

KateCJ says...
5:50pm Sat 2 Mar 13

jim_bo says...
'I think Vincent Pearce should be investigated as it was clear from last nights meeting and comments/actions made before the meeting that he was not impartial. All against the 4 very expensive tax payer funded reports.'

I couldn't agree more. His behaviour was outrageous.

Report this post »

crazy comments says...
8:58am Sun 3 Mar 13

Wht don't the Buntings just stick a few thousand pigs on the site instead. Much better to have nice smelly pongs in the air than nice clean fresh air.

Report this post »

local gossip says...
9:38am Sun 3 Mar 13

Magnificent performance of One Man Two Guv'nors at the Charter Hall on Thursday. Vincent Pierce was brilliant in the James Corden role. Someone ought to shake his hand.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
1:21pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Trouble is Local, his behaviour and views are taken into account by the inspector at the appeal.

Which in turn could swing the result in favour of the Park plan.

Inspectors normally side with the planning dept.

Report this post »

James Mercer says...
1:41pm Mon 4 Mar 13

Could you lot be any more negative? All I'm hearing is that it will get through. It was a fairly resounding 10-4 against, the submission was a shambles, the figures obviously do not stand up or they wouldn't be hidden, they say no building in the AONB (then at the last minute say the Chinese Garden will be walled with a big building in the middle), no-one actually mentioned the route from Horkesley Park to Flatford, which surely a lot of visitors will take, having had their Constable appetite whetted. If anyone can let me know a realistic way of getting there on main roads, I'd love to hear it.
The Planning Dept have made themselves look ridiculous by admitting that this application breaches their own planning rules, yet still recommended that it be accepted.
The Highways report did not take into account the use of Sat Nav.

It's hard to know who is more incompetent, the applicant or the council!

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
4:56pm Mon 4 Mar 13

I hear what your saying James but "mistakes" whether intentional or not made by the officers can and most likely be used by the appeal as ammunition.

The battle was won by Will and his team but the wars not over yet.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
5:34pm Mon 4 Mar 13

I assume that, normally, the Planning Inspectorate sides with the local planning officers because they have correctly interpreted both their own local policy and national policy.

In this case, some of the officers misinterpreted national policy to predetermine the recommendation and over-ride local policy. This is contrary to planning law, which says that determination must be made in accordance with local policies, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree