Another decision made by the Planning Committee of Marlborough Town Council on Monday evening (16 August) was to reject the application by the developers of the Equine Clinic at Poulton Mill for change of use from its current state.
Also a member of the public asked a question of the committee regarding the original approval for this development – PL/2021/04663 – regarding the nature of what was understood by Councillors present when making their earlier decision to approve. The questioner asked if the Planning Committee would reassess their original decision, given that for many present it centred on the support of the two organisations noted below along with the number of new jobs to be created by this enlargement.
The original July decision was reported by marlborough.news following the meeting on 5 July. At that meeting it was implied that both Wiltshire Wildlife Trust and Action for the River Kennet (ARK) had been involved in and consulted about the plans for this venture but amongst the comments on the Wiltshire Council Planning Portal website regarding this proposal, both organisations took issue with the venture raising objections to the proposal – as it stood.
Gary Mantle, of Wiltshire Wildlife Trust started his comment by stating “Wiltshire Wildlife Trust OBJECTS to the proposed change of use of land at Poulton Mill with the construction of a new equine centre. The proposed development is within the AONB, outside the limits of development for Marlborough, in a nitrate vulnerable zone, and next to the River Og; a recognised County Wildlife Site.”
ARK’s comment started: “This scale of this building is significant and its location adjacent to the River Og, upstream from the River Kennet SSSI makes it a sensitive site and we do not think it should be developed.”
After discussion the committee voted to reject the proposal and issued a draft resolution: ‘that Marlborough Town Council objects to this application on the grounds of lack of information about environmental protection and potential adverse impact on nature conservation’.
Of the many comments on the Wiltshire Council website relating to the application – a total of seventy five – most were objections. The only clear comment of support was from the Marlborough Town Council’s Planning Committee whilst comments from organisations such as Thames Water did not offer clear objections, stating “we would not have any objection to the above planning application, based on the information provided.” The CPRE (Council for the Protection of Rural England) concluded their comment with: “Over-all, this is an undesirable proposal, inadequately presented. We ask for it to be refused.”
Marlborough.news understands that the Planning Committee of the Town Council voted to object to the latest application – for Change of Use – but is not clear as to whether this related to the original Planning Application or not, hence possibly failing to address the question raised at the start of the meeting by a member of the public.