On 9 Sep 2016 at 1:02am zsolthimself wrote:
A developer wants to dig lakes up a hill near national park and pump water from an often dry stream uphill (or tap water cos they can afford it) for a caviar farm which will be milked using hormones. Please help our environment by objecting to Lewes District Council
Check it out here »
On 9 Sep 2016 at 5:51am lewes toff wrote:
Fantastic idea, pass the crackers.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 7:26am Smartarse wrote:
I already objected, can you imagine the traffic down a single track road!!! Why don't they build houses there and build the fish farm near a river, surely it's not hard...
On 9 Sep 2016 at 8:56am Zsolthimself wrote:
lewes toff made a good suggestion. We might have to stash away stuff to drink in bottles because the water coming out the tap will be a dribble or cease during the weeks (or months) that the caviar lakes are filled up and topped up.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 9:49am Ed Can Do wrote:
If they build it next to a river, surely there is a far greater risk of contamination to the river? Also after the initial building work is done, I'd be surprised if a caviar farm generates an excessive amount of traffic, it's unlikely they'd be producing enough to warrant more than a couple of trucks per week.
Also I'm probably being ignorant here, I know next to nothing about caviar farming, but why would an inland lake with farmed fish in it threaten the lives of sea trout as per the poster?
On 9 Sep 2016 at 10:00am observer wrote:
It's the hormone factor that would worry me.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 10:41am Smartarse wrote:
Not much traffic, did you bother to read the link before forming your "educated opinion" local?
On 9 Sep 2016 at 10:50am Slartibartfast wrote:
They need to dig a big holes first, this will involve moving thousands of tons of soil, and landscaping the entire plot.
So whilst under construction there will be dump trucks moving up and down the lane (it's not one pond, it a series of them).
Basically the plot is already allocated for housing, what's the point of putting a farm on it, keep it housing and put the farm somewhere more suitable (greenfield site or an existing pond). The water supply is not suitable, the location is not suitable, access is not suitable, madness.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 1:56pm Zsolthimself wrote:
Rd can do asked how Sea Trout come into the picture. There is a small stream at the foot of the slope. There's no flow at this time of year it's just a bunch of ponds. You can walk between them. Sea trout lay their eggs in the gravel here and in December are seen swimming up to this point. Runoff from the sturgeon water will contain pathogens which don't harm the Siberian sturgeon but for which there is no immunity for English fish. Another effect is run off down the banks while the lakes are being dug. OART are the experts on this. But one of my neighbours used to write books and articles about angling in local waters. The sea trout will suffer.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 4:42pm Zsolthimself wrote:
Wrong thing wrong place dot com (this thread) nearly became nice picture the wrong way around. My thanks to the editor or administrator (I assume) of the Lewes Forum website for turning it the right way up. Although the traditional media are now covering some aspects of this story (because the developer has a good track record of leveraging the media for his business) it's us in the Lewes area who lose out if the planners do something silly like escalate the flooding risk to a lane in the Lewes area where at some times of the year you have to decide which way to point your car so you can get out to other roads depending how many hours it has been raining.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 7:42pm Smithy wrote:
More East Chiltington nimbyism.
We the caring hipsters of East Chiltington love everything and everyone as long as they don't try and settle in our parish.
On 9 Sep 2016 at 8:08pm Zsolthomself wrote:
Smithy I understand why you might say that. I moved here not even knowing where East Chiltington was to be close to my nephew and niece whose mother my sister had died. I was still getting lost around here years later. There are good people here as everywhere. I grew up in what you would call a slum where 6 families shared a kitchen and toilet. Having money or not having it doesn't make you a good person or role model. Am I a nimby? Yes and proud. I don't want people polluting my space whether it's to satisfy billionaire caviar eaters or people like me who like fish and chips. You either care about places and people or you don't. Taking a shot at people because of where they live isn't much different to having a go at people because of where they were born or their religion. As far as I know we were all born on the same planet. (So far....)
On 9 Sep 2016 at 10:10pm ? wrote:
am I right in thinking caviar is sturgeon eggs and all the other stuff is just any old fish eggs?..if so don't you have to kill the sturgeon to remove the eggs and they need to be pretty big before they produce eggs?
On 9 Sep 2016 at 10:51pm Smithy wrote:
Are you accusing me of being a racist on the basis that I dare to criticise the people of East Chiltington for objecting to new houses being built in an area where there is space to build them and now getting the arse because someone wants to start a business in the parish.
Get yourself in the real world , no doubt you consider yourself 'progressive' well your not.
On 10 Sep 2016 at 12:44am Zsolthimself wrote:
Smithy this isn't about houses for workers. The plan is for an industrial scale site which will produce caviar to be sold at over £100 for a 60 gramme jar. Due to the fact that the fish are worth about £5,000 each the location will become a crime magnet and fortress. The problem is there are many complicated issues here. I'm not saying I understand all of them. The value of my house may go up by being close to a showcase caviar farm. So what? After you've read the first few hundred pages of the plan and related articles you too might start to be annoyed that the planning lottery means you have to waste so much time on such an idea. And the planning system means that people who have been on holiday get 1 to 2 weeks max to read and object or risk living next to the biggest earthworks in these parts in history. For what? There isn't any affordable housing in this plan. I don't blame you for not reading the plan. I wish I didn't have to either.
On 11 Sep 2016 at 10:43am Ecowarrior wrote:
Smithy, the proposed 'farm' offers no employment nor benefit to the local community. The only person who will gain will be the applicant. This will be at a cost to the environment and it's considerable wildlife. This speculative development is on an important greenfield buffer site alongside a lane only 3.5m wide, and contractors will be using it for months. The contractor has confirmed he has no experience of building sturgeon holding ponds, nor of constructing a series of ponds on such an elevated site. These five foot sturgeons are alien imports carrying pathogens, to which our native fish may have no immunity to - hence the concern. The site is unsuitable, and the real reason behind the proposal is to enable the owner to fulfil his long held wish to establish a large family dwelling. It's all a smokescreen, an attempt at hoodwinking the council into giving permission. With human activity most of the wildlife will be displaced, and the parish of East Chiltington will be the poorer for it.
On 11 Sep 2016 at 10:47pm Ken Benning wrote:
Ecowarrior. I am the owner and I am very interested to know your basis of allegations or knowledge you claim to have concerning our operation. Your statements are entirely untrue and are slanderous. You obviously have no idea about sturgeon fish, that they are not vector carriers like trout, or that all of our fish are fully vetted and carry clear 3O day quaratined health certs as granted by CEFAS/FHI. Futher your understanding of the impact to the contentious stream is also incorrect. The EA would be involved if there was an issue. However for the record, please be advised that we will now not extract any water from the said stream and that the water course does not have any connection to our operation. If you wish to discuss this further please feel free to contact me in person, and please refrain from making false statements on public online forums. I would advise you to read the terms of this forum.
On 11 Sep 2016 at 11:13pm Meldrew wrote:
All I can say is that the sturgeon must have had a long swim from the Black Sea or whatever. Poor sods, to end up in a pond in East Chiltington. Doesn't sound natural to me. Leave the bloody fish alone to live their normal lives without being buggered about. I can't think of anything more unpleasant than eating fish eggs. Disgusting. Here's a cheaper alternative - there are loads of snail and slug eggs around, A bit of black boot polish, a slice of toast and Marmite and you wouldn't know the difference. Fish-farming in any guise is horrible or so my goldfish tell me.
On 12 Sep 2016 at 12:00am Zsolrhimself wrote:
Mr Benning is mistaken re some facts. At the East Chiltington parish council which rejected his plan a local resident asked Ben Woodward the "contractor" in the above post and who had earlier attended a meeting with residents how many sturgeon farms of this type Ben had built in the UK. In the presence of witnesses Ben said none. Ken you yourself have said this would be the first design of this type in the UK too. Ben said he was hoping to bid for the work and spoke in support of your plan.
Re the pathogens. Although you are an acknowledged expert at self publicity you are a non expert on animal diseases. The issue seems to be that alien species which are healthy in their own populations have built up many immunities. Simply moving such animal stocks from one location to another and in a site which is open and where surface running water is part of the design means that some of this water will inevitably have contact with surrounding water down slope. Pathogens which are harmless or even symbiotic to an alien species are often harmful to native species. This is simply biology.
Please refrain from threatening discussion of your plan. Discussing scientific issues isn't slanderous.
On 12 Sep 2016 at 1:25pm Mascara Snake wrote:
Caviar farming is pretty evil. The sturgeon are killed to extract their eggs.
The land is right up against another property. It will be blighted by bunds and an industrial complex. This scheme is not applicable for the countryside of East Chiltington... a location marked out by the local plan as secluded and unspoilt and requiring protection from development.
This application is suspicious too. Firstly Mr Benning (see above) was left the land and dearly wants to build a house on it. It is thought by many that this caviar farm is his route to build the dwelling.
Secondly Mr Benning's financial status is open to question. In the last few years most of the companies he runs have become insolvent and closed, and the one or two that are left do not make any money worth speaking of, certainly not anything like enough to finance a new caviar farm
His last caviar operation is amongst these, so why he should want to start another now is highly questionable... oh, hang on... to build a house!
Check it out here »
On 12 Sep 2016 at 4:28pm Ed Can Do wrote:
I read the article in the Argus about this and my favourite bit was this:
"Jonathan Britton would also be a neighbour to the caviar farm should it get the go-ahead. He, his wife and five children moved into their substantial property – complete with 17th century listed farmhouse, tennis court, county-standard cricket net and a swimming pool with pool house – in 1990.
Having invested in a “heritage asset” in a hamlet designated by town planners as unsuitable for further development, he is baffled and frustrated by the suggestion that his community could be so dramatically altered.
But he insists this is not mere nimbyism.
He said: “I’m hugely pro business, I sit on the board of the British Business Bank and I’d like nothing more than to see him be successful but this is such an inappropriate site which will have massive impact on the landscape."
Heaven forbid a few pools of fish ruin the view from the hilltop of Mr Britton's cricket nets, tennis court, swimming pool and pool house. Hardly sounds like a rustic idyll under threat from becoming a blighted industrial landscape. Key phrase there also is "invested in a heritage asset", i.e. poor old Banker Britton is worried about losing a few quid when his knees are too far gone for cricket and he decides to flog off his rural sports centre.
Check it out here »
On 12 Sep 2016 at 5:21pm seniorcitizen wrote:
I am lucky to live in this little spot in the country. We have peace and quiet and after years of working it is great to retire here. We all have concerns with the environment, pollution etc. and I also have a concern as to how I will be able to travel to hospital/doctor appointments when the community bus I use is unable to use the VERY narrow lane due to large lorries. This is the one road to get from my place to the town of Lewes as the only other road is even narrower to narrow for the bus. It is difficult now to have the bus and cars pass someone always has to back to a suitable spot but with a lorry who backs up.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 7:56am Zebedee wrote:
Re Sea Trout. The stream that runs along side the proposed development is a spawning ground for the dwindling population of Sussex Ouse sea trout. It is thought that the farm might have an effect on the stream (abstraction, pollutants, sediment) that will stack the odds even further against the species.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:22am Ken Benning wrote:
I would once again advise those in this forum of actually reading the reports that are listed on Lewes.gov.uk accompanying the very detailed submitted planning application.
There are many in-depth studies, that clearly outline the actual impact to the area.
For the elderly gentleman this forum with bus/traffic concerns - there is a Traffic study by GTA Civils, which outlines existing traffic movements and planned future movements.
Interestingly, in the period measured, there were 14 movements of large HGV trucks, which the Author of this forum claims do not use the lane very often. Further, there was also 1097 car movements - but again according to the author, this very quite country lane mainly for horses and cyclist only.
Unfortunately most objectors have not read any of the previously requested reports (or refuse to) and instead simply wish to accept the author of this forums word as verbatim; which as gleefully stated by himself in an above previous post, he is actually only a Nimby, of which he also states he is proud to be a Nimby?
Therefore I am surprised that some members of this forum don't take the time to gain the recorded facts which unsurprisingly disagree with the forum author’s Nimby rhetoric.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:23am Ken Benning wrote:
Since day one of our planning process, that has now been over 2 years, the Author (and his partner) have selfishly managed to whip up an entire neighbourhood into a deluded misinformed frenzy of fear, based on their rather negative and damaging invented claptrap. He has, and has never had, any experience in Sturgeon, or Trout, or a care for the said stream that he has used as his basis for objection.
For the record, once again let me state, that we will not (even though we are perfectly entitled to do so) extract any water from the brook. We will be creating our own water source from groundwater and rainfall. Please feel free to contact me to discuss if you have any concerns.
While I am on the subject of this debate, yet let me also take the opportunity to state what the Author unsurprisingly fails to tell you.
He fails to tell you that his £2m+ country pile monstrosity abuts a wooded area that then adjoins an agricultural field that I own.
He fails to reveal that he has a gleaming 2.5 million litre swimming pool that was drained and painted, disposing all of the acidic chlorine based harmful chemicals that he pays handsomely to keep his beautiful pool crystal clear.
Where does all that chlorine water go I wonder ? Because in the countryside, there are no urban drains or sewers.
Let me tell you – eventually all of his household waste, detergents et al, alone with the rancid swimming pool water - goes straight into the very brook that he claims to love so much.
Further - he also does not let on about how he has confronted every single consultant that been to my fields and that has helped with this exciting ecological project; and he fails to tell you that he has continually butted his nose into every moment, demanding answers concerning our project, one that has absolutely no concern to him whatsoever.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:27am Ken Benning wrote:
In England ( last time I checked) we have professional Planning Officers, Environmental Officers, Flooding Officers; we have DEFRA, The Environment Agency, CEFAS, The Fish Health Inspectorate, the Wildlife Enforcement Agency..... (I can go on)...... More locally we have Natural England, CPRE and OART…
But oh no - Mr Kerres knows better than them all, and he is damned if any other of these professional people know better than himself.
What he does do well though, is invent stories of Killer Sturgeon that will walk (or perhaps even fly) across cross a 1/2 of a kilometre field, clambering through (or perhaps jump over) a 10mm stock fencing that is 1.2m high, then up and over 2m high bunds and then through dense shrubbery; for (the best part!) the sole intention of climbing into a brook (which is physically not deep enough for them (5ft/15kgs) to swim in - and wait for it – ‘one way’ (as sturgeon cannot swim backwards); and finally (as depicted in his homemade computer graphics) evilly eat up every single little sea trout. I actually was really hoping that he might of even got Dr Evil from Austin Powers in there too for a little ‘Je ne sais quoi’ !
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:30am Ken Benning wrote:
For the record, sturgeons do not eat trout, nor is their mouth at the front of their body as depicted; they are bottom feeders (with a mouth that (in human terms) sits below what would be their chin/snout, and not above it. They are living fossils(dating back nearly 400m years) that eat, plankton and debris/scraps from the floor of the watercourse. In the planned farm they would eat a a specially made organic certified biodegradable sinking pellet.
If you so wish, please call CEFAS and ask them about our sturgeon in the UK. What you will find is that all of our sturgeons have been through a 30 Day quarantine monitoring period, and that all of our sturgeons are entirely disease free and have been issue an entirely clear heath certification by a ‘qualified’ fish vet.
Unfortunately the opposite is the case for most Sea Trout, who are carries of many many pathogens – hence any logically thinking person would realise that it is in our best interest to keep our sturgeons well away from any Sea trout! Click the link for more info on the diseases of sea trout.
Check it out here »
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:31am Ken Benning wrote:
In summary – I think Mr Kerres needs to find something else to do. He has the odd blog about a couple of neighbours B&B’s, and he has a selection of other rather random websites – so I suspect he will be able to easily fill his ‘Killer Sturgeon’ void in his life once again, after this all this nonsense dies down.
Mind you, based on his huge number of twitter followers, an impressive grand total of 4 followers (has profile picture says it all), I suspect that his websites might not gain a lot of traffic unfortunately. At least the B&B owner might hopefully read it.
Again, I am very happy to discuss this farm with anyone who wishes to ask a sensible, considerate question. You are more than welcome to come to our office in London and you will be most welcome.
And if you don't want to ask me a question due to ‘say no to caviar farm’ peer pressure - then instead why not call one of the respective aforementioned governmental bodies and ask them instead about the 'Killer of Sea Trout' sturgeon farm.
Mind you, as a final thought – given that all of the industry professionals who signed their name and their reputation to the unbiased professionally generated report s– and that Mr Kerres has dismissed all of this suitable evidence; I am sure too, as are others concerned, that no doubt he will also feel that those in the respective governmental bodies are also incorrect too.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 8:13pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Just one further last point to further add to the claptrap. Our dear neighbours team had also fed the Argus reporter futher nonsense...
Quote: This is not the vast tract of land one might expect for such a venture and in fact the entire plot is not much bigger than two five-a-side football pitches arranged in an L shape....
Umm....a five a side football pitch is 25m x 15m (375sq mts) minimum with a maximum of 42m x 25m (1050sq mts).
So lets take an average of roughly 700sq mts.
An acre of land is 4046.856 sq mts.
Six acres of land (as registered at the Land Registry) is therefore 24,281.136 sq mts....
I think its fair to say that the size of the land designated for this project has been grossly understated for the sole intention of creating a feeling that the farm would be squeezed into a minute area.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 9:09pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
Some more mistruth....
Given the authors extensive understanding of the said planning application, it is most suprising that his little blog wrongthingwrongplace dot com has clear links to the planning application on Lewes' planning website, yet carries a purposefully misleading image of my fields.
The planning application on the Lewes planning website clearly states:
The creation of ponds (part retrospective) and the provision of associated buildings with a supervisory dwelling to service a fish farm producing caviar. Planning permission for the dwelling (only) sought initially for three years in order to demonstrate enterprise viability...
However Mr Kerres has yet again let his meddling get the better if him and he has falsely doctored and then posted on the web an ariel image of the respective feilds for the planning, but has decided to photoshop the image and remove the existing two ponds on the site!
See for yourself. Go to google maps and seach postcode BN7 3QT and view as satellite image....
Voila! Like magic....the two ponds reappear.
Once again, deliberately misleading claptrap.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 9:41pm Zsolthimself wrote:
The 2 ponds were dug without planning permission. Permission is being sought as part of this
On 13 Sep 2016 at 9:56pm Hmmm... wrote:
Kenneth. You've assumed all comments in this thread are from the same person, but they are not. However your comments do add weight to the suspicion that your application is not about creating a sturgeon farm but more about spiting the neighbour (whether he deserves to be spited is another matter) and building a house where the planners would not normally let a house be built.
That notwithstanding, how are you able to afford the development when your companies have been liquidated, are on the point of going bust or make no money? All you seem to have left is your inheritance. And, what happened to your last sturgeon farm on Exmoor, and the partnership with the Noble Family? Seems to have gone by the wayside too.
Also, damaging the sea trout spawning ground. You state your proposed farm is completely insulated from the winterbourne stream, spawning ground of the endangered Sussex sea trout but in fact your application plainly states that you will be abstracting a substantial amount of water from the watercourse in the autumn. How do you square that?
On 13 Sep 2016 at 10:05pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
So you admit doctoring the images to suit your own slandering requirements.
That, I believe your honour, is diliberate lying. And lying in a corporate sense comes with serious consequences.
Perhaps while your in a more honest mood, you might also admit your other lies and meddling too - particulalry the image of the big sturgeon greedly attempting to gooble up the landscape and sea trout.
Dont worry, its all been copied and filed by our legals and will be presented as eveidence to the planners, planning committee and hopefully a judge.
Be rest assured I will not rest until I get retribution for the mistruths and lies, and more over the damage that has been caused to my business.
Unfortunately your little slurring media campaign has grossly backfired on you especially once the national media took hold of it and took it international.
This will cost you and any one else associated, dearly.
See you in court.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 10:20pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
It seems you do not wish to reveal your self, like the snake in the grass.
I do not need to explain any of my business interest, and neither are my colleagues going to provide any insight into my dealings; clearly you have not a clue of such dealings, less than that you have gained online.
Perhaps if you revealed yourself, I could invite to my offices in London and furnish you with your so hoped for answers.
Lastly, we are in ongoing talks with Lewes and given the outcry (or should I say attempted coup) concerning the stream and water extraction, we have decided to re design our system and completely remove the stream, as one of a handful of water sources available to us.
No doubt you have access to the planning application, so please read Ashdowns report and in particular para 5.3. You will note we will dig below the groundwater level and through hydrostatic uplift we will have a fully seperate water source for our sole use.
Again if you want to have a sensible conversation, you might wish to contact me directly. I suspect though, that you wont.
On 13 Sep 2016 at 11:23pm Kenneth Benning wrote:
On more thing Hmmmm...
You state (quote): All you seem to have left is your inheritance....Last I heard, both my parents are still well and truely alive. Perhaps your reseach is a little limited? I really dont know where you get off spouting all this utter nonsense.
Further, please dont insult me furthrt claiming I only want to build a house. I have been in Caviar for many years, it is our business, and we a temporary dwelling onsite. Its a caravan, not a stately home!
Moreover especially now every man and his dog knows about this planned farm, we will need a physical presence at all timed.
You and your follow objectors only have yourselves to blame for this.
Lastly - You also state that I have an issue with the neighbour. Personal he is not my concern, but commercially, a boundary has been crossed and there are therefore commercial consequences for this.
On 14 Sep 2016 at 7:12am Hmmm... wrote:
As you know, the land was not inherited from your parents.
On 14 Sep 2016 at 7:59am Kenneth Benning wrote:
Please look on the Land Registry. The land is owned by Chiltington Caviar and not by me personally. You will also note that I am currently the main shareholder. What you will not know is who else are contractual shareholders. Please do try to check your research and its authencity before posting. It is becoming most tiresome having to corrrect you. None the less, I will answer your questions, no matter how illogical, for the sake of this forum and the ongoing planning process.