Villagers have branded controversial plans to build a winery “monstrous”, claiming it would be “taller than the Berlin Wall” and a “blot on the landscape”.

The owner of Cobham House Vineyard has submitted his fourth application to see if prior approval is needed to erect the large-scale agriculture building on the land near Gravesend.

Pallab Sengupta - who lives in Andorra - bought the almost 29-acre estate, off Gold Street, between Luddesdown and Sole Street, intending to harvest the grapes.

Around 22 acres are used for growing vines meaning 61 tonnes of fruit is expected per year and 60,000 bottles of sparkling and still wines could be produced by 2027.

According to the submitted planning statement, the proposed winery is therefore needed to support the expansion of the business.

If approved, it would be more than 40m long and 9m tall - the same height as two double-decker buses stacked on top of one another.

The barn - which will be stained black to merge with the landscape - is planned to be placed on the north of the vineyard, near the back gardens of the homes on Gold Street.

The submitted document states it would be near “hedges and trees” to help “provide containment” and where it can “be screened with native planting”.

It adds: “It should be noted that the vines on either side will provide a significant screening effect most of the year during the summer months.

“The main point here is the proposal is sensitively designed, is reasonably necessary for agriculture and will be screened using a landscape strip and the vines themselves.

“The building and processes within fall within the definition of agriculture as confirmed by case law. For these reasons, the proposal can secure prior approval.”

However, residents who live near the vineyard are far from happy and claim the plans are “unacceptable”.

Speaking to KentOnline, Richard Gethin, who lives in Gold Street, said: “It will completely obliterate the view. It is an industrial unit.

“It is within yards of an elderly couple’s garden. It will stop them from having any view and the constant noise and light pollution will make their lives unbearable.

“The winery has been placed in the worst possible position in the whole field as it is in the highest part and can be seen from miles around. It is not in keeping with this beautiful and tranquil area.

“It will destroy the amenity of the area for the public forever.

“This winery will totally change the local environment by being a blot on the landscape.”

Neighbour Dr Rubin Minhas said the winery would be “devastating to their quality of life” if given the go-ahead, describing it as a “monster of a building”.

The doctor, who works at Oakfield Health Centre, in Gravesend, added: “Nobody is against the principle of development. We recognise he can put an agricultural building on his land.

“People are not adverse to a winery. People are supportive of what others have already done sympathetically.

“However, if you put a building of that size on the land you have industrialised the area.”

The winery would sit metres away from Elizabeth Rons’ back fence, ruining her view of the countryside. She said: “It will be like having the Berlin Wall at the end of the garden.”

Mr Sengupta has said he is aware “neighbours have concerns for their amenity” however he believes the size and location of the winery is “necessary”.

The submitted planning statement added: “The proposed location is easiest for future access and screening.

“It is considered optimal because it is set against an existing tree line, rather than in an isolated field location elsewhere.”

An impact assessment also states there would be “no adverse noise impact” with bottling happening five days a year and the need for light is “low”.

Parish councillor Peter Crow also raised concerns over access to the vineyard and winery as Gold Street cannot be used by HGVs.

The Batts Road resident added: “I think there is a real big issue in accessing this site and the increase of traffic that this building would bring.

“I am concerned about the number and frequency of vehicles that will come down a lane that is already dangerous.”

However, the planning document states there will be no HGVs associated with the operation of the winery.

Eight letters of support and six objections to the plans were submitted at the time of writing.

To see more planning applications and other public notices for your area, click here.

One written in favour by a resident of Trafalgar Road, Gravesend, read: “I wholeheartedly support this winery. It is great for Gravesend.

“It champions British agriculture, as we know farmers are suffering and need to have different ways to make a profit.

“What they have done already tidies up the valley and enhances this beautiful AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty).”

Another who lives in The Street, Cobham, said: “Great news. I think this would be an asset to everyone in the local area and all the local businesses too.”

A third from Glenrosa Gardens, in Gravesend, added: “I think it is a lovely, natural business to have in that area and will only support the natural beauty for local people.

“In our opinion, this is a far better view than a housing estate would be which has always been a concern for local people.

“How anyone could object to the spectacular view of vines growing in the local areas is beyond me.”

This is the fourth time Mr Sengupta has sought permission after the previous three were rejected by Gravesham council.

Planning officers stated the first application needed prior approval as it would be “harmful to the landscape” as it would sit in the green belt and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

The second request introduced mitigations to please the officers’ concerns and was originally approved but then rejected after neighbours called for a judicial review as they were not consulted before a decision was made.

A petition was also set up, gaining more than 480 signatures.

The local authority conceded that it should not have been approved at the same time as agreeing prior approval so it was quashed.

The third application was then submitted but the location of the building was moved to the south of the land in the hopes of pleasing residents.

However, council officers rejected the plans stating it would be “visually prominent” and the siting was considered unacceptable.

This latest scheme has moved the winery back to its original position on the north of the land, near neighbouring properties.

Efforts were made to approach the applicant for comment