The rejection of the revised outline planning permission submitted by the Manton House Estate for houses on land off Rabley Wood View has been confirmed by the area planning committee (October 8) – and the reasons put forward for that rejection have been accepted.
The original decision on September 17 had been put on ice while Wiltshire Council planning officers produced ‘reasons for rejection’ that would be defendable if the applicants took the rejection to an appeal.
The land to be built on is currently an open space and play area owned by Wiltshire Council – and an earlier legal agreement had said it should remain as an amenity space ‘in perpetuity’. Wiltshire Council has, as they say, a ‘pecuniary interest’ in seeing that the houses are built.
There was a feeling among local objectors to the scheme that the ‘reasons for rejection’ were too weak.
But Senior Planning Officer Mike Wilmott told the meeting that only reasons backed up by evidence should be included so as “To give the Council a better chance of success in defending the decision to reject the application.”
He put forward three ‘reasons’:
• the impact of the scheme on the area of outstanding natural beauty (and he had new photographs as evidence to show that.)
• the fact that the water meadow land (once drained) being offered to replace the loss of the current play area was not ‘equivalent’ – notably that it was less accessible and less safe for children.
• the fact that the applicants have not got the clearance that the Council’s archaeologist had sought.
Councillor Nick Fogg argued that the points put forward by Action for the River Kennet (ARK) about the draining of the water meadow and the probable rise in water levels once Thames Water stopped their extraction from the river, should be considered as part of the ‘reasons for rejection’.
And he produced a new (January 2015) report by Thames Water about the River Og and its threatened wildlife species. He pointed out that ARK had the relevant evidence as they had carried out the improvement programme to that part of the Og valley.
His arguments and the report were not accepted by Mr Wilmott. He said that ARK had not produced evidence for their ‘claims’ and ‘opinions’: “We do not have the evidence to back up ARK’s assertions…it would be dangerous to rely on ARK without the proper evidence.” He added that if the decision did go to appeal, then ARK could present their evidence.
Marlborough Town Councillor Mervyn Hall put the position of his fellow councillors. Among other points, he wondered what more evidence was needed about the unexploded ordnance in the meadow other than the historical research, an unexploded grenade and a visit by the Bomb Squad – something that was not mentioned in the ‘reasons for rejection’.
None of the councillors changed their views on the application and most were especially vocal that the replacement play area was ‘not acceptable’ and that ‘the existing play area cannot be replaced by a water meadow.’
Six councillors on the committee voted to accept the ‘reasons for rejection’ and so confirm the rejection of the Manton House Estate’s outline planning application. Councillor Fogg voted against – remaining unconvinced that the ‘reasons’ were strong enough.
If there is an appeal, the inspector will take the application ‘from scratch’ and objectors like Sport England – as well as ARK – can present their evidence.
It was not brought up at the meeting, but local residents who have been objecting to the housing development are somewhat bemused that earlier in the week workmen had been cutting trees that separate the current play area from the water meadow where the new play area would be.
These trees are crucial to arguments about safeguarding of children using the new play area and to the housing’s visual impact from the other side of the valley.
They were working both on the Manton House Estate owned side of the trees and on the Wiltshire Council owned side. After a short time they left.
Football: Spitfires shoot down Marlborough Ladies
