A group of residents are gearing up to fight revised plans for an “enormous” winery they have branded a “vinicultural Disneyland on our doorstep”.

The Guardians of the Cuxton Countryside is an organisation of now 60 members brought together to protect the undeveloped land of the Cuxton section of the North Kent Downs.

It was first formed as the Cuxton Against the Winery group in 2022 after plans were submitted to Medway Council for a wine processing facility, visitors centre, restaurant, coffee shop, and presentation room within the Silverhand Estate vineyard.

However, the application set to lay in Upper Bush in Cuxton was rejected by councillors in 2022, and then again a second time at a public inquiry held a year later.

MDVC UK, who own the vineyard, has since told KentOnline it was preparing a second attempt to get plans for a permanent wine-producing facility approved.

But after hearing the news the opposition group explained it was prepared to fight future plans.

Leader of the group, Paul Pattison, said: “Obviously we aren’t the decision makers but we will do our best to inform the decision makers what we think the issues are as of now with a new application and as a result of the old one.”

The 65-year-old historian explained there were five main issues brought up when the proposal went to public inquiry.

The proposed site sits in the Green Belt in the North Kent Downs which has been designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

It also sits less than 100m away from Upper Bush Valley which is registered as a Conservation Area.

Paul explained: “Because we are in a national landscape, a development, it has to weigh the benefits and harm, and in this particular instance they could not demonstrate that.

“To sum up the inspector effectively said it would be a major urbanising element within an unspoiled rural landscape and would spoil and damage the reason that landscape was designated.

“A development of this size has to show it has exceptional circumstances and prove it is of national importance which both the council and the public inspector both denied.”

But this has not deterred those behind the winery scheme.

The company’s chief executive, Gary Smith said: “We still need a site, and we are looking at that one again with a few modifications.

“We want to impact the local community as little as possible and if we take the fruit off this site, it will cause more transport issues than if we produced it here.

“It’s a large area and generally we’re looking to get 4,000 tonnes of wine in the future.”

But Paul and the group feel there are ulterior motives to their plans.

He said: “We know what they’re trying to do and we don’t need to be patronised.

“One of the argument they made is that it is an agricultural processing building but they are also putting in a visitors centre and a café, making it a tourist attraction where they can show off their wine while looking over the North Downs sunset.

“They have a bigger vision than they’re willing to admit.”

Group member Keith Slucock shared the chairman’s disdain for the winery, calling it a “vinicultural Disneyland”.

But in response, Silverhand Estates insisted the buildings fall within “agricultural use”, explaining they had made alterations to their plans to “soften” any visual impact on the countryside and lessen traffic woes.

A spokesman for the firm said: “Today, we have an agricultural ticking clock that means we could be harvesting over 4,000 tons of fruit from our vineyard in the next few years.

“It is important to say that our activities are securing the National Landscape area of over 1,600 acres in long-term agriculture, as the life of a vine will be 35 years and more.

“Having employed Lord Norman Foster, one of the UK’s best-known architects, to design the site we felt it was important to include the ancillary aspects of a winery site, such as a shop, café and restaurant to allow people to enjoy it.

“Only 8% of the overall 12,000sqm site was allocated to this ancillary use with the rest dedicated to winemaking. Even during our planning appeal process the inspector deemed the building ‘agricultural’.

“The modifications we have made address the concerns of the inspector. We have reduced the maturing cellar, so the overall building is now 4,000 square metres smaller than before, reducing the impact of the build process on the National Landscape.

“We have also changed the roof material to wood, from concrete to soften the landscape visual impact.

“The energy centre, which would have allowed the site to operate at a carbon neutral level has the option to be removed, due to its visual impact.

“Finally, we removed the car park in favour of a park-and-ride facility which means there is a much-reduced level of traffic.

“The changes are significant and mean the concerns of the inspector have been addressed and we hope the local area would be proud of this unique and iconic build in the area.

“We are also guardians of the local countryside with our land holding and the exemplary way in which we manage for environmental benefit.”

No new official plans have been submitted but Paul hopes the new Labour-led council will share its predecessor's decision.

He added: “We’re hopeful the council, despite the obvious attractions, will make the right decision and observe the sensitivities within the legislation that are enshrined around this site.

“Everything has now changed; we have a new make-up of the Medway Council and a completely new government, and we’ll have a new application and planning committee.

“I suppose in a way everything is different but I’m hoping the planning committee will get well informed about why this scheme was turned down in the first place and reflect upon that when they assess the new one.”