Having had sight of the first of three Officer Reports the Society primarily objected on the basis that the case officer plan did not include the whole site landscape changes being introduced into this highly protected landscape by the Vineyard. But this, we acknowledged, could be as a result of the application documents submitted.

We were also surprised that the chosen location for the vineyard was the subject of often brutal prevailing winds. The landscape changes, we argued, required in this highly visible location were only necessary because the applicant had failed to choose a suitable location where the natural landscape of rolling hills could have produced a better location, rather than choosing to confront the prevailing winds.

An initial objection was also submitted by the Council's Landscape Officer, who commented: 'proposed section of Paraweb fencing would be unnecessarily high, visually prominent against skyline and uncharacteristic. Would be detrimental and fail to conserve and enhance the landscape/AONB.' However this was subsequently withdrawn by his successor once further information had been provided.

In her report the case officer 'acknowledged that the Council’s previous Landscape Specialist has objected to the proposal on the grounds of visual harm to the surrounding landscape, which forms part of the Heritage Coast and Undeveloped Coast, and failure to conserve and enhance the AONB.' However, she continued, 'overall, the long term benefits of the scheme, in terms of visual impact on the landscape, biodiversity and the rural economy, are considered substantial and to outweigh the short-term and limited harm of the proposal.'

Nonetheless, one of the two ward councillors still had reservations and wanted the application 'to go before the Development Management Committee for consideration given the objections and comments of the SHDC Landscape Officer relating to impact on the AONB and UDC, as well as other similar representations.'

At Committee, consent was given