Agenda item

Public participation

Angela Fry spoke in objection to the application.

Jayne Baker spoke in objection to the application.

Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Jeremy Browne spoke in support of the application.

Will Harley spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Mervyn Hall spoke on behalf of Marlborough Town Council.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application. As a result of the determination for application 14/03379/FUL, the recommendation for the application was changed to refusal due to a lack of suitable compensatory proposals for the impact upon the character and amenity of the area.

Key issues were stated to include: the principle of the proposed residential development including whether the proposed ‘replacement’ recreational/nature park land is sufficient to compensate the loss of the existing site for recreational purposes; highway safety; flood risk and drainage; whether the scheme would make adequate provisions for open space, and archaeology.

Details were provided on items of late correspondence and representation received since production of the report.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Questions were asked on what impact was to be had on this application due to the refusal of application 14/03379/FUL. It was explained that there were now no suitable compensatory proposals. Clarification was sought on the legal requirements of maintaining a play area in Rabley Wood if the application was accepted. It was explained that the legal agreements would have to be determined separately.

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the Committee, as detailed above.

A debate followed where paragraph 74 of the National Planning Framework was discussed, along with the lack of a section 106 agreement to mitigate concerns.

At the conclusion of debate it was,

Resolved:

That the planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

The proposed development is unacceptable because it would result in the loss of an existing open space and recreational area without providing for its replacement in terms of equivalent or better provision in a suitable location. Specifically, the off-site kick-about area would be less suitable due to its more distant relationship to existing residential development and the lack of oversight from these properties that currently exists. Similar issues of lack of suitability would arise in relation to the proposed equipped play area, where it has not been demonstrated that any replacement equipped play area would enjoy the current open setting that allows for natural surveillance from existing houses and users of the existing recreational area. This raises safeguarding issues for children using the proposed areas as the lack of natural surveillance would mean that most children using it will need to be supervised by adults. This would conflict with that part of paragraph 74 of the NPPF that states that existing open space and recreational land should not be built upon unless the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quality in a suitable location.

The proposed development does not make any provisions for securing affordable housing on the site or financial contributions towards education provision in the locality or financial contributions towards the on-going provision and maintenance of open space and recreation provision. The application is therefore contrary to Policies HC30; HC37 and HC34 of the Kennet Local Plan 2011.

The archaeological assessment submitted with the application has indicated some potential for archaeological remains to be impacted by the proposed development. In these circumstances, it is considered necessary for a field evaluation to be carried out to fully assess the potential impact on any heritage asset of archaeological interest, in accordance with paragraph 128 of the NPPF.