A bid for a new winery that could turn Kent’s only city into “England’s sparkling wine capital” is facing another legal challenge.

Environmental campaigners claim the approval of plans for the £32 million development at Canterbury Business Park, off the A2 near Bridge, were “rushed” as part of a process they say was unfair.

They add it is “completely unnecessary” to build on the greenfield site, which sits in a protected Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

However, Tenterden-based winemaking giant Chapel Down - which will run the operation - describes the latest efforts to thwart the project as “unwelcome and deeply frustrating”.

The plans were first approved in April last year by Canterbury City Council (CCC), which ruled there were “exceptional circumstances” for developing in an AONB.

Officers said Chapel Down had demonstrated a need for the development and that there were no other suitable sites for the winery, which along with two warehouses would be used to process grapes, produce wine and store it for distribution.

They added it would “significantly expand the nationally important viticultural industry in Canterbury”, concluding the resulting economic and public benefits would outweigh any harm to heritage assets and the loss of agricultural land.

But the authority later decided to quash its own decision after being told objectors potentially had grounds for a judicial review to challenge the reasons it had set out.

However, just three months later the proposal was again voted through after a more detailed report was produced by council officers and concerns about whether the site needed to be in the Kent Downs AONB were addressed.

It is understood Chapel Down has agreed with the landowner of Canterbury Business Park to plant vines at neighbouring Highland Court Farm, with these grapes, along with others transported from the firm’s existing vineyards in Kent, used to produce wine on-site.

At the meeting in July, Chapel Down CEO Andrew Carter told CCC’s planning committee “The role of Kent within the story of English sparkling wine growth is pivotal. We see a future for this region as celebrated as that of Champagne for it being a world-class wine region.”

Councillors backed the plans by nine votes to four, but environmental campaigners believe the process was flawed, and are mounting a new legal challenge they are crowdfunding.

Dr Jack Lowe, an environmental activist involved with the campaign, told the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS): “Basically they [CCC] rushed to approve it.”

He argues members of the public were not given enough time to give their view on the plans for the 11,900 sq m facility, which Chapel Down says will create 400 jobs.

“When the application was made, the council only gave seven days between when they announced the planning meeting and when it actually happened,” Dr Lowe said.

“There were three speakers on behalf of Chapel Down and in support of the winery, and despite there being opposition from several statutory consultees - including the CPRE, Kent Downs AONB Unit and Natural England - the council only allowed one opposition speaker,” he alleged.

CCC would not comment on the choice of speakers for that meeting in particular.

However, it is normal for speakers to be permitted on the nature of their arguments, so that if several objectors or supporters plan to make the same points, the council can choose to allow as few or as many are needed to make the case without repetition.

It is also normal for the agenda for a planning committee meeting - where decisions are made - to be published a week prior to the meeting.

Before applications reach this stage in the process, they are publicly accessible in the council’s planning portal for months, with residents able to make representations.

The site where the winery is to be built sits within the Kent Downs AONB.

A legal challenge to CCC’s approval of the scheme is to be heard at the High Court on May 7-9.

The judicial review was initiated by environmental charity CPRE Kent, but is now being spearheaded by local activist and Boughton parish councillor Sarah Moakes.

Dr Hilary Newport, the director of CPRE Kent, explained: “CPRE Kent vehemently opposed the decision to grant planning permission for a winery in the AONB at Highland Court.

“We never take legal action lightly: it takes a serious financial commitment and at CPRE Kent we operate on a shoestring.

“We took legal advice to explore the necessary first steps to apply to take the decision to the High Court for a Judicial Review of CCC’s decision, but – despite the appalling precedent this decision sets – decided with regret that in this instance we could not invest the financial and staff resources to take this matter further.

“Nevertheless we were happy for the initial legal groundwork we had paid for to be taken forward by another challenger, and wish them every success.”

When the project was backed by the council’s planning committee in July, committee chairwoman Cllr Pat Edwards (Lab) told members Chapel Down had looked at 89 sites across seven Kent districts, and this one was the most suitable.

However, campaigners are now suggesting the wine firm should instead take over the nearby premises of A Gomez Ltd.

The French fruit firm folded in December - ceasing trading, bringing in administrators, and leaving 400 staff at its site on the Canterbury Business Park jobless.

Dr Lowe continued: “Part of our argument, which is now very convincing, is that clearly there is an alternative site for their warehousing.

“It’s brownfield land, right next to where they’re planning to build.

“So there’s a clear argument that they don’t need to build on undeveloped greenfield [land] where there are rare species of bats and plants and orchids in particular.”

The proposed relocation does not feature in the legal challenge, and is just a suggestion by campaigners.

Dr Lowe stresses that developments such as that proposed by Chapel Down “erode” the protection of “sites that are crucial for biodiversity in the face of climate crisis, but also just for leisure and enjoying countryside”.

He and fellow campaigners have successfully raised more than £2,500 to help finance the legal battle from donations on Crowdjustice.

Legal documents seen by the LDRS explain the challenge will argue that CCC’s procedure for the meeting was unfair, and that the council did not give enough weight to the views of “expert consultees”.

It will also claim CCC did not properly explain its disagreement with previous planning cases, and that the committee was misled into thinking there is no official definition of “exceptional circumstances.”

Chapel Down already runs a winery and vineyard at Small Hythe Road, near Tenterden, and experienced a 25% growth in sales last year.

A city council spokesman said: “We are absolutely satisfied that the planning application was correctly dealt with at the consultation stage and at the committee meeting, and on that basis we will robustly defend our position when this comes to court in May.”

A Chapel Down spokesperson said: “In the latter part of the year [2023], we were informed that a judicial review claim had been made to challenge Canterbury City Council’s decision. This is unwelcome and deeply frustrating.

“We strongly believe that our development, in close proximity to the A2 dual-carriageway and on the edge of an existing business park, will have a significant positive impact on the local economy, creating jobs and increasing local spending, and should be allowed to proceed without further delay.

“Twinned with Reims, the creation of this state-of-the-art hub for wine production is at the foundation of our sustainability plans and will further burnish Canterbury’s credentials as England’s own sparkling wine capital.

“We are fully supportive of Canterbury City Council’s decision to challenge the claim through the judicial review process.”