Battle lines drawn over 5th set of Horkesley Park plans

8:00am Sunday 17th June 2012 in Local news By Ryan Jennings

Stephen, Hector and Kate Bunting Stephen, Hector and Kate Bunting

THE business which wants to build a tourist attraction on the outskirts of Colchester says the development will be good for the town.

Bunting and Sons has submitted plans to build a visitor centre in Horkesley Park, in Great Horkesley, and to revamp the area around it.

The fresh plans predict 316,250 tourists are expected to come to the Stour Valley Visitor Centre at Horkesley Park each year with 150 jobs being generated.

The new plans, the fifth set, are a scaled down version of ones rejected by Colchester Council last year.

Kate Bunting, partner at Bunting and Sons, said: “These are not the same plans.

“We have taken account of everything we should have done. We have even made slight changes to the building in light of the feedback we were given at the consultation.

“We truly believe the Stour Valley Visitor Centre at Horkesley Park will be an asset for the community, an amenity for local people and a draw for tourism, providing an outstanding celebration of the English countryside.

“It will create about 150 new jobs on-site, and additional off-site jobs, alongside a raft of other benefits for the local area.

“Far-reaching professional studies and assessments have been undertaken which confirm the Stour Valley Visitor Centre at Horkesley Park will be beneficial across the board, with no significant adverse effects.”

If the application is given the go-ahead before the end of the year, Bunting and Sons believes the 117-acre attraction would be open by spring 2014.

The business has appointed architect Sir Michael Hopkins to redesign the plans, which do not include any new build in the Dedham Vale area of outstanding natural beauty. Other elements, such as an underground building, a lecture theatre and a specialist garden centre, have also gone.

Total floor space has been reduced by 30 per cent, while shop space has been cut by 86 per cent.

Among the additions to the plans are an indoor display ring, where Suffolk punch horses would be on show to visitors, and a field-to-fork production, which traces the journey of food.

The business is staying tight-lipped as to how much the development will cost – or how much it will cost visitors to get into the park.

But financial details have been submitted to Colchester Council in Bunting and Son’s business plan.

Comments(27)

totallyfootball says...
10:32am Sun 17 Jun 12

Mm the figures have changed from last time I believe, I thought they said half a million visitors? Maybe they are just trying to hoodwink the planners. I think you need a much bigger brown envelop to get this off the ground, they are a greedy bunch.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
10:56am Sun 17 Jun 12

That's still nearly 1000 people a day visiting the site.

Are they using the same footfall consultants as the VAF?

Report this post »

hughie-s says...
11:01am Sun 17 Jun 12

Is there still enough shop space for a Tesco?

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
6:01pm Sun 17 Jun 12

This plan looks like a good one and I fully support it. But then I am not a NIMBY that lives in Horkesley.

Report this post »

jim_bo says...
10:16pm Sun 17 Jun 12

No but then your views are often against the majority, perhaps just to ruffle feathers.

Report this post »

Boris says...
11:03pm Sun 17 Jun 12

jim_bo wrote:
No but then your views are often against the majority, perhaps just to ruffle feathers.
Sdapeze loves to wind us up, but I for one value his comments, even though I seldom agree with him. For example he is wrong on the issue at heading, but fair enough, it is up to us to prove him wrong.

Report this post »

Boris says...
11:08pm Sun 17 Jun 12

The Horkesley Park project is in fact hopelessly vitiated by various factors, such as the fact that, in the "consultation" mentioned by Kate Bunting, everyone who filled in a form was counted as agreeing with the proposal, whether they in fact agreed with it or not.

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
2:32am Mon 18 Jun 12

Sdapeze wrote:
This plan looks like a good one and I fully support it. But then I am not a NIMBY that lives in Horkesley.
I'm not a NIMBY who lives in Horkesley either.

You have to look in detail and understand the history of the application to appreciate why it is not appropriate for the site. I assume the lack of an appeal after the previous application was refused is an admission that it too was flawed.

Report this post »

Horse wisperer says...
10:26am Mon 18 Jun 12

As a resident of a neighbouring village, I would rather see a heritage park here rather than a housing estate

Report this post »

van man says...
7:04pm Mon 18 Jun 12

This family are not interested in conservation, or heritage, or our town.
They are interested in the money they will get from it. If it didn't make money, they would not even consider building it.

Simples!

Report this post »

ShadowReturns says...
9:26pm Mon 18 Jun 12

van man wrote:
This family are not interested in conservation, or heritage, or our town.
They are interested in the money they will get from it. If it didn't make money, they would not even consider building it.

Simples!
No surely not a business being set up to make money how absurd! who do these people think they are looking to invest their own money to make a profit just to keep for themselves.

Report this post »

TheCaptain says...
9:02am Tue 19 Jun 12

Something will be built there eventually. Is this not better than housing or a travellers site?

Report this post »

Simon Taylor says...
2:22am Wed 20 Jun 12

So the argument is that every square inch of the planet is going to be built on eventually, so we may as well ignore all our planning laws, National Parks, AONBs and World Heritage Sites, and start moving the bulldozers in now?

Report this post »

Horse wisperer says...
12:59pm Wed 20 Jun 12

van man wrote:
This family are not interested in conservation, or heritage, or our town. They are interested in the money they will get from it. If it didn't make money, they would not even consider building it. Simples!
They have also spent a lot of money on the project which will take them years to recuperate. If they were not interested in conservation and heritage, they would have gone for houses.

Report this post »

totallyfootball says...
1:28pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Horse wisperer wrote:
van man wrote:
This family are not interested in conservation, or heritage, or our town. They are interested in the money they will get from it. If it didn't make money, they would not even consider building it. Simples!
They have also spent a lot of money on the project which will take them years to recuperate. If they were not interested in conservation and heritage, they would have gone for houses.
Mm that's simple, houses are a one time hit this centre is forever, I am not really interested in how much they have spent, the roads around the area can't take the current traffic so why add more to it? Also why should the locals have their quality of life ruined for someone else's gain?

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
5:21pm Wed 20 Jun 12

I used to love visiting the heavy horse centre in Dedham in the 1980's when Mr Mills and his family opened up his premises to the public. I seem to remember that the Dedham nimbys closed that down as it was too intrusive in such a special village, traffic, noise, etc. I applaud what the Bunting family do with their Suffolk Punch horses. You can't tell me that they do it for money. As far as I can see they do it out of a genuine interest in the breed and in country heritage generally. Ploughing and harvesting demonstrations at their Anchor pub in Nayland. All free. I would love to see a heavy horse centre brought back to Colchester and wouldn't mind other activities associated with such a centre. Let the planners decide on its size. The Buntings used to bring their horses and dray to the Colchester Festival, at no cost and with great enthusiasm for supporting the community. I'm sorry, but I do generally believe that there is a place for a country life heritage centre of some sort in Colchester. Mr Tropeano has had similar difficulties with Colchester Zoo over the years and look what he has done to put Colchester on the map. Why don't you naysayers attack him as well? I just wish Colchester would wake up to the huge potential that it is sitting on for tourism. It virtually ignores its Roman heritage. Why? I have no idea. I offered my free services as a Roman to the council for the Olympic torch event. They didn't want to know. So it saddens me to see all this negativity towards people like the Buntings who are only doing what is natural, to do something for the community, to build their business and, yes, make some money - hopefully.

Report this post »

StopLookListen says...
11:57pm Wed 20 Jun 12

Perhaps it's the natural instincts of the human race coming to the fore, and I don't mean the instincts to make money as fast as possible, but those older ones related to having fresh air to breathe and space to live.
.
We need vast green "lungs" around our urban sprawls, and although it might be great to keep the horses going it is not so great to increase traffic flow and to build even more on the decreasing green space.
.
The Naysayers are not necessarily nimbys, but maybe those who remember what it was like to walk into the country - and it could be a short walk from Colchester Town within living memory - and fill their lungs with fresh air and the scent of the fields and woodlands.
.
There is just an instinct to say "stop!" at some point and leave at least farms if not wild places. Does nobody care for quiet, fresh air and serenity any more?

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
9:09am Thu 21 Jun 12

Then fight the 2000 houses at Mile End that we definitely do not need. There is a hidden agenda here that shouts to me as being class war and envy.

Report this post »

StopLookListen says...
10:36am Thu 21 Jun 12

I don't like the proposal for those 2000 houses either, Sdapeze.
.
What class war and envy? Is this one of your acclaimed attempts to stir up another poster on the site? I cannot see any reason why the wish to have some green space and fresh air should be associated with such a motive/prejudice on my part.
.
I don't want or indeed need anyone else's money, possessions or presumed "place in society". I'm happy in my own skin. I just want future generations to be able to view the green vistas that lie beyond the traffic infested towns and roads, and to breathe as much clean air as may be available to them.
.
I was born in Colchester and lived within reasonable walking distance of the Town, but at the end of the garden was glorious farmland and countryside. That has now been stamped out and none too happily replaced. A real working farm is a glorious place, a "museum" farm is not.

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
4:54pm Thu 21 Jun 12

So why the venom against the Buntings and not the Cants? I have clearly missed the reason for your prejudice.

Report this post »

StopLookListen says...
5:49pm Thu 21 Jun 12

Sdapeze, there was no "venom". I don't know how your mind works - if indeed it does work very well - but my concern is for the countryside and its benefits to the human race in general, and I worry about the effect of traffic fumes on all of us.
.
There is absolutely no venom against the Buntings whoever they may be, nor is there any against the Cants. I just have a right like everyone else to air my views and to object to any more building and/or traffic pollution.
.
I do however wonder if you have inherited some warlike tendencies from your ancestor Boudicca? If anyone disagrees with you, then you ride in on your chariot (well, bike) and do a crash and burn on them.
.
Prejudice against any particular people who own land? Where?
.
Traffic fumes may be affecting your reasoning capabilities and also your reading comprehension. I'd get a checkup if I were you.
.
I note that you're not a Colcestrian born and bred, and also that you are not of an age to remember the true glory days of Colchester, its splendid High St shops and markets, and all the other things that made it great place to live. You won't have known the surrounding countryside when it was so easily within reach of all. It is appreciated that you are trying to "sell" Colchester as a tourist destination and thus bring back both money and (decent) life to the Town, but don't think you own the place, no one of us does.

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
6:57pm Thu 21 Jun 12

I simply put my view. This scheme seems like a good one to me and beneficial to the community as a whole. Sadly, the majority could not care less about this.

Report this post »

jut1972 says...
7:28pm Thu 21 Jun 12

It's funny isn't it when developers want to build 2000 houses in Myland on fields CBC dont bat an eyelid. Same scenario in Dedham and its fought tooth and nail.

1000 visitors a day equals about 300 extra cars a day. Maybe 50 an hour. Less than one a minute. Hardly total grid lock.

Report this post »

Derek Drew says...
9:38am Fri 22 Jun 12

This is a family business with roots as deep in Colchester soil as
any of us; local entrepreneurs with genuine concern for the countryside and its preservation. That is marked by a desire to foster rural crafts in danger of loss by neglect.

They have for nearly fifteen years practically. financially and sympathetically pursued a vision designed to support and enhance the area's regional attraction, always prepared to adjust their plans to demonstrate a determination to remain good neighbours.

More than seventy years' observing initiatives that would have brought prosperity to Colchester doomed to failure by narrow-minded objectors convinces me that those successes that have made it - the zoo and yes, firstsite, - have done so despite the negative attitude of the small-minded who prefer to dismiss inovation rather than support it.

Report this post »

StopLookListen says...
11:14am Fri 22 Jun 12

It is nice to see someone with as deep roots as myself in the Town, airing his views.
.
Not so good, though, that he has to join in the vituperative comments of the frequent posters, on anyone who disagrees with him.
.
You don't agree with Derek? So, that automatically makes you small-minded and negative. You don't have a point of view, you're just some sort of crank!
.
Come on now, be a gentleman,
Derek.

Report this post »

Sdapeze says...
11:33am Fri 22 Jun 12

So you are, on the contrary, being open-minded and positive? To attack rather than to discuss is the sign of a lost argument to my mind.

Report this post »

StopLookListen says...
1:32pm Fri 22 Jun 12

I thought I was putting my view forward. If I had been attacking I would have brought in the big guns!
.
You are the one on the attack. Is it the Roman Legionary's only resource?
.
I have been called small minded, negative, aggressive (presumably if I am attacking), class biased and many other things.
.
So, you and others defending this development are using personal remarks and attacks to make your point?
.
Not so convincing, and I stick to my own feelings.

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