“When considering applications for development within National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of: a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy; b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.”
“63. The policy requires the exercise of planning judgment. The decision-maker must consider whether there are “exceptional circumstances” justifying the granting of planning permission for the development in question, and whether granting permission would be “in the public interest”
“3.1 Criteria for public speakers at meetings of the Planning Committee 3.2 Speakers must give notice to Democratic Services not later than 12.30 pm on the working day before the meeting. 3.3 The number of speakers for each planning application is limited to: 3.3.1 Three persons in favour, three persons against the proposal plus 3.3.2 a representative of the Parish Council, Canterbury Heritage and Design Forum, Whitstable Society, or Herne Bay & District Residents Association in whose area the proposed development is situated; 3.3.3 a representative of an advisory/amenity group or resident association speaking for a proposal, and one against a proposal, whose terms of reference have a direct interest in the proposal; 3.3.4 the applicant or their agent, but not both, who shall also be afforded the opportunity to speak last. 3.3.5 In addition, district councillors who are not members of the committee may be permitted to address the Planning Committee in relation to planning applications in their wards or immediately adjacent to their wards. At the discretion of the Chair of the committee, other councillors whose wards may be affected by a planning application may be permitted to address the committee. […] 3.5 In circumstances where more than three persons wish to speak in support or as objectors, the first three registered in each case will have the right to speak. Those not speaking shall be provided with the names of the relevant ward councillors and the nominated speakers, in order that they can seek to have their points raised. 3.6 All persons speaking shall be strictly limited to three minutes each.”
“Thank you for the messages you left me yesterday and last Thursday afternoon following my request last Thursday morning to speak on behalf of Natural England against the above development at tonight’s Planning Committee. After checking with colleagues you subsequently advised me via voice message that Natural England could not speak as only a single organisation could speak against the proposal and this slot had already been given to Katie Miller representing the Kent Downs AONB Unit. You suggested some alternatives including asking a Ward councillor to speak on NE’s behalf or speaking myself as a private individual. I do not consider that either of these would be appropriate as my sole interest in the case is as a representative of Natural England (as your Authority’s statutory advisor on protected landscapes). Instead I am working with Katie Miller who will be presenting a joint statement from both the Kents Downs AONB Unit and Natural England as we share similar concerns.”
“The Council’s constitution lays down the amount of speakers at committee and the order. This provides for 3 persons in favour and 3 persons against the proposal; plus a representative of the Parish Council, Canterbury Heritage and Design Forum, Whitstable Society, or Herne Bay & District Residents Association, in whose are the proposed development is situated; a representative of an advisory/amenity group or resident association speaking for a proposal and one against a proposal, whose terms of reference have a direct interest in the proposal. The people you refer to from the wine companies registered as individuals supporting the application.”
“My apologies for labouring the point but you told me I could register to speak as a private individual but not as a representative of Natural England. I did not pursue this option as I (perhaps naively) assumed that this would mean I could only speak in my capacity as a private individual (and as an individual the development does not affect me at all because I live in East Sussex) and therefore I would not be able to make the wider points I would wish to i.e. those concerns raised in the responses I wrote on behalf of Natural England. Both Andrew Carter and Nick Lane were clearly identified during the committee proceedings in their roles working for their respective businesses and their oral statements focussed on general matters relating to the business ambitions and the need for the development. I have to say at the moment I am slightly kicking myself as based on this example it appears that whether one registers as an organisation or an individual is a technicality only and has no bearing on the points which one may make. Based on the examples of Andrew and Nick it appears that I could have registered as an individual and still given exactly the same oral statement as I would have as a representative of Natural England.”
“7.On Thursday 20th July I telephoned Democratic Services at CCC, and spoke to a member of the team who I now believe to be Andrea James, requesting to register as a speaker in opposition to the application. It may be worth mentioning at this point that in over twenty years as Director of CPRE Kent, this is the first time I have felt it necessary apply to appear in person before a planning committee, such was our concern at the impacts of this application. 8. During that telephone call I was told by Ms James that only one group could register to speak against the application, and that that speaker slot had already been allocated to the Kent Downs AONB unit. Ms James outlined the options available to me, which were to make our views known through the AONB Unit speaker, or through a Ward Councillor. I was also told that, if places remained available to register as an individual speaker by the Monday deadline, I could take one of those places. I do not recall being told that although I would be listed as an individual on the speakers’ list, I would nevertheless be able to put across CPRE Kent’s views as an organisation. 9. I do not recall that any firm agreement was reached during the course of the 20th July telephone call, but my firm understanding at that point was that if I were to speak as an individual, that I would be speaking in a personal capacity rather than on behalf of the organisation, as set out in my email of 24 July (the day before the Committee meeting) to the Council’s Democratic Services team and a representative of a local organisation that had also sought to speak. 10. On 21st July, I emailed the Case Office with our updated objection to the application. 11. On (I think) 24th July, I was telephoned by Ms James and informed that an individual speaker registration was available. My decision at the time was, that as a member of the public with no particular personal connection to the site, such representation would carry far less weight than a representation made on behalf of CPRE Kent. 12. I attended the planning meeting on 25th and acknowledge my surprise that the application had four speakers in favour (both the applicant’s company and their agent, contrary to CCC’s own rules, as well as two representatives of businesses closely involved with the company behind the application, while only one speaker was able to put the case for a decision that respected the importance of the AONB at this location. 13. CPRE Kent did consider commencing legal proceedings in relation to the decision and indeed instructed solicitors and counsel to prepare a pre-action letter. However, in this case, CPRE Kent trustees took the difficult decision that the organisation could not justify the expense of a full judicial review. For obvious reasons, the trustees of the organisation must very carefully manage the assets that CPRE Kent holds for the long term and across the range of countryside protection activities in which the organisation engages, and the expense of a judicial review was considered too large despite the importance of this site and our concerns over the fairness of the procedure which led to the grant of permission.”
“For clarity, I was offered a slot to speak as an individual but not as an organisational representative. Since our objection is very much as an organisation I declined the opportunity to speak on an individual basis.”
“I think you have before you a comprehensive report. You’ve heard the arguments. We are not in any way wishing to ignore the very important contribution concerning the AONB and Natural England’s contribution. What we’re doing here is very clearly considering whether this permission should be given for this development because it’s in exceptional circumstances. You’ve heard the reasons. They’ve been articulated several times. The report I thought explained that very well and very clearly and met the arguments in paragraph 177 of the NPPF. But as you’ve heard, this is a matter of planning decision making and obviously that is what we’re here to do.”
“In my judgment, for legally adequate reasons to be given for conclusions on the principal controversial issues upon which consultees, statutory or non-statutory, have responded, a lawful and properly reasoned conclusion on the principal issues in controversy is likely to require at least some, albeit brief, express consideration of the principal points raised by the objector on those issues, and reasons why they were rejected. Otherwise, the objector will not know if his points have been understood and considered by officers and the Committee, and whether or not their consideration gives rise to an error of law.”
“28. The proposal would introduce built development on a greenfield site, which would cause a degree of harm to the landscape value and scenic beauty of the AONB. However, the site surroundings are important as the proposed buildings will be viewed in the context of the commercial buildings that currently exist on the Canterbury Business Park, which to some extent reduces the level of harm. In long distance views, the site is heavily screened by extensive tree coverage. 29. The scheme appears as an obvious and logical expansion of a successful rural employment site and additional planting is proposed to soften the visibility of the proposed buildings. I find that the proposed development would be harmful to the landscape character and scenic beauty of the AONB, but that, given the limited views of the proposal and its context in regard to the Canterbury Business Park, this harm would be at a low level.”
“An appeal decision for a winery in Medway which was only issued yesterday which also comprised major development in the AONB found that notwithstanding significant contribution to the economy of over 100 million pounds and the creation of over a thousand jobs, this did not represent national considerations and support of the scheme, and the expansion of the wine industry is neither a national nor local priority reflected in planning policy and that the benefits could be delivered by development outside of the AONB. The same considerations apply here and it is firmly our view that there is no specific functional need for the facilities to be located at Highland Court in the AONB.”
“We note that reference to the recent decision in Medway, but we have clear differences. It is a different scale, a different scheme and a different location. By contrast, our proposal forms of contained expansion of the existing industrial estate with direct access to the adjacent A2 and is to accommodate the largest and leading brand in the UK wine industry.”
“I recognise that the officer’s report to Committee gave considerable weight to this matter. However, these figures do not identify national considerations in support of this scheme. The assumptions which underpin them are not sufficiently robust nor do they fully reference the economic case for the other options referred to in this appeal. The need for this scheme in the context of the local economy has not been conclusively made.”
“The development would significantly expand the nationally important viticultural industry in Canterbury, supporting the growth of two Kent businesses including Chapel Down, England’s leading and largest winemaker.”
“The English ‘wine revolution’ which this scheme seeks to stimulate could in practice be addressed by development outside the AONB and beyond the setting of the CA. The public interest case for why exceptional circumstances might exist in this case has not been satisfactorily made.”
“14. The NPPF sets out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB which has the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The scale and extent of development within the AONB should be limited. 15. The NPPF at paragraph 177 identifies that when considering applications for development within the AONB, permission should be refused for major development other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. There is no definition of what constitutes ‘exceptional circumstances’ and so it is a matter of planning judgement.”
“I consider that this proposal meets the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test as set out in paragraph 177 of the NPPF and it would be in the public interest to permit the proposal. The applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the development and that there are no alternative sites outside of the AONB to meet this need. The development would significantly expand the nationally important viticultural industry in Canterbury, supporting the growth of two Kent businesses including Chapel Down, England’s leading and largest winemaker. The economic benefits of the scheme would be significant. I consider that the public benefits outweigh the harm to heritage assets (these having been given considerable importance and weight) and the loss of agricultural land.”
“Another key issue is the protection of the area of outstanding natural beauty which the side is within. National policy states that major development within the AONB should only be permitted if it’s in exceptional circumstances and if it’s in the public interest. In assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances, I have considered the need for the development, the benefits arising from the development, whether the development could be located outside the AONB and the landscape and visual impact and the extent that those can be moderated. I have considered the visual effects of the development on both long and short distance views for within the surrounding area.”