On 15 Sep 2016 at 12:56pm Hmmm.. wrote:
Kenneth. Whether you personally own the site of the proposed caviar factory at East Chiltington or whether a company of which you are sole director owns it is neither here nor there.The sole asset of Chiltington Caviar Ltd registered at 30th April 2015 is cash to the value of £7,157, so assuming your accounts are straight then the land has only very recently been 'bought' by the company.
The company is operating a debenture, has liabilities of £22k and a net worth of *minus* £40k. It's not looking very healthy, and certainly not healthy enough to gain the loans required for financing a relatively expensive venture like a caviar factory.
On 15 Sep 2016 at 1:40pm But... wrote:
None of this changes the fact that the road is not suited to heavy lorries carrying thousands of tons of soil away for several weeks/months.
Could you have found a worse spot to put it in?
On 15 Sep 2016 at 2:33pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Hmmm.... Let me help you out. The site is eligible for a EMFF Grant. I do not need loans either. Further, this company carries old debts owed to me personally, hence I will gain this back through corporation tax further down the line. I am guessing, that as well as unfortunately being the snake in the grass, you don't know much about business either. You have no idea of my net worth or assets, and you are just clutching at straws at something that has absolutely nothing to do with you.
Reply to But....
If you actually read the planning reports, you will note that no soil is being taken from the site. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
On 15 Sep 2016 at 3:09pm Peasant wrote:
It is often difficult to disentangle fact from fiction in disputes on this forum, but in the countryside people tend to know their neighbours' business.
In this particular unneighbourly dispute you only have to travel down Chiltington Lane to see that Mr Benning's un-named antagonist has the support of virtually every other resident on the lane, while if Mr Benning has any supportive neighbours they are keeping a very low profile. Threatening legal action to intimidate business opponents harks back to the late but unlamented Robert Maxwell. I understand Mr Benning has also failed to persuade either East Chiltington parish council or his local District Councillor or the local rivers trust to see things his way. It is beginning to look as though those sturgeon hoping to migrate to East Chiltington are facing disappointment.
On 15 Sep 2016 at 4:25pm But... wrote:
You only have to travel down the aforementioned lane to see the mess already created, let alone when work starts. You work all your life to buy a nice property and then your neighbour builds an eye sore next door...
On 15 Sep 2016 at 5:20pm N I M L wrote:
Not in my lane
On 15 Sep 2016 at 7:37pm bert wrote:
I see the DFL's have found East Chiltington !
On 15 Sep 2016 at 7:45pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Peasant....Lets be clear.
As expected, the Parish Council meeting was a bit of a Kangaroo court with 3 of the members being present only 4 nights earlier in the 'say no to caviar farm' residents wine party and photo op. Incidentally only one person actually declared an interest?
Further the council could only object on three reasons as the buildings, traffic statement, business viabilty etc where unobjectable. The only reasons they had were Flooding, Stream extraction and Landscape.
Hence, Flood Analysis report coming from H R Wallingford stating that the chance of flooding from the ponds is non existant. The exraction issue is now not relevant as stream no longer needed or required due to hydrostatic uplift of groundwater in lower pond. Lastly a full visual impact assessment study is now being undertaken, which I am informed will basically state that we are not 'scaring or trashing the land' as depicted. Quite the opposite. We are substantially increasing the ecology and biodervisty of a mature screened site.
Further regarding 'scarring the landscape' the actual truth is we are only landscaping 2917 sq meters of 24,200 sq meters site (12% - not 100% as claimed by the objectors). Another infactual rumour that was being spread about was the site was only the size of two five aside football pitches (less then 1000sq meters) when actually it is pyhsically 25 times the size.
Throughout this process there has been many made-up ridiculos objections which has certainly cost me by having to prove the actual facts. However all of this will be presented to the planning council. And if unfortunately the planning committee meeting is more local politics than actual factual planning law, then I look forward to the planning appeal and over riding nimby meddling and local politics. We have already begun preparing for it, as I suspect the local lib dem councillor has been busy lobbying the lib dems on the committee.
Local politics aside, there is now no reason or valid objection as to why this rural business should not be granted planning permission.
On 15 Sep 2016 at 8:15pm Peasant wrote:
In my experience the commendably independent councillors on the Lewes Planning Committee are very capable of making their minds up on the basis of the evidence presented to them. Where there is a difference of opinion, it is rarely on party political lines.
But my main point is that it appears that your unnamed antagonist does appear to have persuaded your neighbours to support him or her, while you appear to have signally failed in that respect. Why do you think that is?
On 15 Sep 2016 at 8:46pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Peasant... the fact that you claim knowledge of the planning committee and its proceedings suggest that you are already lobbying.
Regarding lobbying the locals, I am sure if the actual facts where stated, and not killer sea trout eating sturgeons, or daffodil eating landscape wrecking monsters, then perhaps this farm might have been perceived differently. But from day one the objectors have been hell bent on trashing any proposal that I had. Why else would you spend money paying a planning consultant to pick holes in this application.
Further it is quite hard to communicate with those who just simply dont want to hear the fact and wish to invent their own version.
On 15 Sep 2016 at 10:36pm Woody wrote:
Looks to me, like a class issue.
There are trout/fish farms etc. all over Sussex, not to mention the factory farming methods of other animals deployed around the county.
The fact that 'posh caviar' might be produced, and the images it portrays, gets some people's goat.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 10:53am Mr Snake wrote:
Not at all the same as a trout farm.
Your consultants may have cocked up Mr Benning. Have they forgotten about phosphate build up? Note new submission from Ouse and ASdur Rivers Trust:
"Both sturgeon faeces and uneaten food will contribute to high phosphorus levels in the closed-loop system, resulting in eutrophic conditions and high algae levels. Without the means to strip out the phosphorus (not mentioned in his application) he will have no recourse but to tanker away large volumes of water on a regular basis and there appears to be no mention of this in the planning application."
So even more lorries?
On 16 Sep 2016 at 11:46am Kenneth Benning wrote:
I am 'once again' going to have to disappoint you Mr Snake and highlight your utter unfortunate utter ignorance.
The biomass versus foliage ratio we can adjust to suit as we wish, as well as the organic feeding ratio and control all output, not to mention flatbed growing and vertical growing towers to add to the foliage ratio.
To simplify this for you, so you can clearly understand once and for all - it means that we have ample capacity and flexibility to handle the 400 fish and corresponding water treatment.
It boggles the mind, that I have been doing this for years, and you gleefully claim to know better. Further, what you fail to realise is that the total waste produced annually could be extracted from the purpose built collection channel at the bottom of the sturgeon pond and spread on the neighbouring field as fertiliser.
It just so happens that we wish this waste to grow plants within instead.
Sorry to again to deflate your bubble, but you really should take up another vocation, as clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 11:53am Kenneth Benning wrote:
Mr Snake - one more thing.
Do you actually do any research ? Or do you just like spouting nonsense at me whenever it comes into your mind ?
I just Googled 'phosphate plant growth'... Why don't you try Google too (If you havent heard of Google...It's a website and it's really good, and it provides information on many many subjects....bit like a public library only a bit quicker...)
Just to help you - when I Googled (term used when you type into the keyboard a search question) 'phosphate plant growth' - I got the following reply :
The function of phosphorus in plants is very important. It helps a plant convert other nutrients into usable building blocks with which to grow. Phosphorus is one of the main three nutrients most commonly found in fertilizers and is the “P” in the NPK balance that is listed on fertilizers.
You should really test out the website - you can basically search for anything, and you never know, it might help with your knowledge too!
On 16 Sep 2016 at 12:36pm Mr Snake wrote:
Bearing in mind that you are proposing a closed loop system not describing mitigation of phosphate build up in your application is an important oversight. BTW, How is your other farm going? Is it based on a closed loop system too? Which company do you operate it under?
On 16 Sep 2016 at 1:10pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Mr Snake. I will request one of team to put the figures into a report for you addressing your latest idea. Regading Devon, as I am sure you know, its a flow through farm. Regarding our operating businesses, quite frankly thats none of your business!
On 16 Sep 2016 at 1:19pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Today is the last day of Public consultation, hence I will sign off from this forum. I have tried to be as open and honest (unlike many of the alias names) and answer your questions. Some comments have been valid. Many have not. If you wish to contact me directly, please feel free to do.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 2:34pm Mr Snake wrote:
As you say, your experience is with open loop systems where phosphate is washed out into the river (the River Mole in the case of your current operation) and does not build up in the system.
By omitting mention of phosphate buildup in your closed loop system your consultants have let you down. As you are aware your reed bed filtration system will not deal with it, and such will be the build up in a closed loop system of phosphate from sturgeon faeces and uneaten food that no amount of water plants will capable of reducing it.
It is a very big flaw in your plan and your application, and possibly your profit model. Unless you illegally flush the water into the winterbourne stream (which feeds into the sensitive Bevern stream, already maxed out on phosphates) the polluted water will have to be taken away and clean water abstracted from the stream on a regular basis to replace it. This will be bad for residents (due to increased tanker movements on the very small access road), bad for the stream (already dry for many months), bad for the spawning sea trout and presumably bad for the viability of your proposed business, if indeed it is viable in the first place and not, as suspected purely a ruse to get a house built on the land.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 2:45pm Microbiologist wrote:
I cannot make out whether the forum is emitting phosphate or Bull's feaces
On 16 Sep 2016 at 2:49pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Mr Snake. Please refer to the pond sections. You will note the gulley design of the v shaped ponds and the 300mm deep waste trap running the lenght of the ponds. This is there to collect the very waste you talk of and be effectively, from time to time, hoovered out of the two ponds. Further if you knew anything about aquaponics, you would know that this waste material is like liquid gold in temrs of plant feed material. Again your utter ignorance only makes you look stupid. Please also refrain from making false statements of my intentions.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 3:21pm Mr Snake wrote:
Troughs alone are not sufficient to remove phosphates, some of which dissolve in water or are held in suspension. Presumably this is why your application omits to mention that the purpose of the troughs is for the removal of phosphates. It might have been picked up and alerted the planners to the issue of phosphate removal.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 8:19pm Will this ever end? wrote:
I don't even know where East Chiltington is but I'm beginning to think that you all deserve each other.
On 16 Sep 2016 at 8:54pm Bob wrote:
Just seen on telly, reminded me of "Nice but dim".
On 17 Sep 2016 at 11:24am Wotcha wrote:
If I was asked to make a decision on the basis of what has been set out in this thread, I would take a view based upon the fact that the Ouse and Adur Rivers Trust have put forward an expert view on the science and the likely impact of high phosphorus levels arising from the operation. Mr Benning' s consultants don't seem to have answered this in the papers they have submitted.
If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on the likely outcome being:- Refusal.
On 17 Sep 2016 at 1:11pm Cock wrote:
If it's anything like the Amex Stadium fiasco I have to agree, Wotcher.
On 17 Sep 2016 at 6:01pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Wotcha. Thanks for the genuine comment. The organic feed input has 1% phosphorus, hence 4tn of fish at feed rate 0.1% - 0.2% equals 40g to 80g per day. Soluble (70%) is easily dealt with by min water based foliage of 670m2 of combined reed beds and lily ponds, not to mention the 180m2 of flat and vertical hydro growing beds. Rule if thumb you need 16.7m2 per 1kg of feed input
Solids are caught in the v trap that runs full lenght of both sturgeon ponds, and just like a pool cleaner, they are sucked up regularly. Even at full summer feed rate the biomass solid waste wouldnt even fill 4m3 per year or 4 IBC containers or one per quarter.
In short, any person with a little knowledge of aquaculture would have assumed this system from the pond design.
We would prefer to recycle our waste directly or through composting on site. However if this is stipulated as a planning condition, that the 4m3 waste must be removed but our exsiting waste contractors Secamin, it will cause one extra vehicle movement per quarter, which based on the traffic statement means one van movement within the more than 13,000+ quarterly movements.
I somehow dont think this will be an issue.
On 18 Sep 2016 at 6:57am Babblefish wrote:
I really find it hard to believe the owner is discussing the issue on the lewes forum? Is someone masquerading as him? And why? And do I care? Do you care? What's it all about, Alfie?
On 18 Sep 2016 at 11:55am Toadfish wrote:
The questions were asked and Mr. Benning replied. I have found his replies interesting and have learned something . Now it's down to the powers that be.
On 18 Sep 2016 at 12:04pm ECOWARRIOR wrote:
Babblefish - It's about the loss of an important wildlife buffer between three properties. Mr Benning has employed various companies to produce supporting documents -which have been shown to be both flawed and biased. For example. it was claimed the lane was 5m wide - it only has a drivable width of 3.5m. It was claimed only 13 (at risk birds) use this area - The British Trust For Ornithology (BTO) have recorded 2012-2016 - 87 species (38 at risk). There are breeding Great Crested Newts which use this land (pictures have been taken this year) yet it was claimed the nearest was 2km away - the list of errors goes on and on. If development takes place most of the wildlife will be displaced for ever - for it does not like human activity. As for the ponds - this is nothing like the one in Devon, which has thousands of litres of fast flowing clear water. The proposal is for a so called closed loop - which is flawed. The two companies involved have admitted to having no experience of building a sturgeon farm before!
Mr Bennings technical replies and data is being paid for and supplied by and an Aquaculture business. It seems retaining sturgeon is problematic, due to it's sensitivity to oxygen levels and the inability to assimilate more than 20% of its food - which means 80% is waste. With a large proposed dwelling, an 11m wind turbine - generators and so on - it seems Mr Benning and his family are not, and never will be, welcomed in the Parish
On 18 Sep 2016 at 1:14pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Ecowarrior....there we have it. The real truth about your objection which is actually nothing to do with farming or the rural environment...
Quote: Mr Benning and his family will never be welcome in the Parish....
I have endlessly tried to accomadate you and your concerns, and never have you or any other objectors bar one, met with me in person to discuss your concerns. All it has been is a barage of made up attempted derailing of this application. Hence finally you reveal that your true objection is actually me. Well I sorry about that. But in this big world we all live in, you cant like everyone can you.
Do me a favour though, and please go to the little village church (where my wife and I got married) and you will see my name and my familes names inscribed in the tiles that adorn the lychgate... along side many other old families of the parish.
Perhaps you should also think carefully about quoting other familes feelings, not just your direct neighbours who you have managed to spin a yarn to.
On 18 Sep 2016 at 3:02pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
And one last thing EcoWarrior. Chiltington lane and all the houses along it, covers an area of only 0.11sq miles. The parish you talk of, which you claim that I am persona non grata, is actually 67 sq miles... You really therefore should either get your facts straight or just stop this nonsense.
I am actually starting to feel sorry for you - not for our planned farm, as the greatest amount of effort has gone into ensuring that it has the least inpact on the ecology and the surrounding area; moreso I feel sorry for you in the same way that a bully in the playground is in thruth usually the weakest of them all, and behind the nasty face lies a very usettled person of great unbalance.
Hence instead of being goaded by your comments, I can only bring myself to feel sorry for you and I honestly hope that once this planning matter dies down, that you might try and reflect on this post perhaps aim to find some happiness in your life.
On 18 Sep 2016 at 5:15pm Chiltington Lane wrote:
Kenny. May I apologise on behalf of those in East Chiltington that don't condone this very public vile behavior. It sheds a dim light on the community.
I have lived here for many years and whilst there has been some honest concern about your application, I have appriecated your honest answers to the concerns we have.
However there is absolutely no requirement for such grotesque skull duggery. If you do get to build your farm, I hope the minorities ill feeling will rescind, for this is a planning issue and should not be in anyway a personal attack.
And all because a certain neighbour doesnt like your plans for your own private land.
This forum seems to have hit rock bottom, and the certain alias Chiltington Lane neighbours on this forum should be very ashamed of themselves.
On 18 Sep 2016 at 5:52pm Sussex since 1900 wrote:
Well said C.L. The title refers to my family's presence here. Prior to that it was Norfolk. I have noticed, since I came into the world mid 1950's that there is a growing divide along class lines and "entitled" people who "discover" our county and those who happen to be born here. It is a sad situation .
On 18 Sep 2016 at 7:34pm farmergiles wrote:
agreed with both C.L. and Sussex 1900. there was an earlier text by someone who obviously lives close to the feilds stating that they'd 'worked all thier life' to buy a house only to have an eyesore built next door.
Is farming really an eyesore because you bought a house in the wrong area love then and maybe 'you' should move back to where 'you' came from. stop bringing bad feelings about our community claiming we all nimby and everyone supports you because we don't.
On 19 Sep 2016 at 1:20am Peasant wrote:
As it happens, Mr Benning, I do have some experience of the planning system in Lewes, but yours is not the only planning application it has to deal with. And you can see from my previous posts on this forum that I live in another village, several miles from East Chiltington. However, I did happen to drive along Chiltington Lane recently, and was impressed by your neighbours unanimity of view.
On 19 Sep 2016 at 7:09am Kenneth Benning wrote:
Peasant. If you are stating that now I feel mine is the only application at Lewes, I rest my case. A final last stroke of an attempt to cause negativity. Do you really think I want to be monitoring this forum?
Of course I am going to defend my application on this public forum, which was started by the key objecting neighbour/campaigner; I have had no choice. I have invested years of time, effort and money into this farming oppourtunity, only for it to be rubbished by a very small but determined group of individuals. Perhaps you might consider the landowners point of view. It is not thier landscape. It is mine. There entire site is heavily wooded with no views from any of the houses concerned. The argument againt planning for this farming business is a farce.
On 19 Sep 2016 at 7:18am Kenneth Benning wrote:
Chiltington Lane, Sussex since 1900 and Farmergiles. Thank you for your posts. I hope I may come to meet you in person in due course. Best wishes. Ken.