Agenda item

Public Participation

Mrs Jayne Baker spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr David Backer spoke in opposition to the application.

Elizabeth Cooper spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr Richard Cosker spoke in support of the application.

Mr Jeremey Browne spoke in support of the application.

Mr Will Harley spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Justin Cook spoke in opposition to the application on behalf of Marlborough Town Council.

The senior planning officer introduced the report which recommended that the decision to grant outline planning permission be deferred and delegated to the Area Development Manager subject to the favourable outcome of archaeological investigations and completion of the necessary legal agreements (to include the effective variation of the existing two S52 agreements), and subject to conditions.

Key issues for consideration were noted as including the principle of the proposed residential development, visual impact, highway safety, and residential amenity.

There were no late items.

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. It was clarified that Marlborough was close to meeting its housing requirements, but there was a shortfall in the wider community area. It was noted that Thames Water had not objected to the application, but that they had stated they would require conditions should permission be granted. It was explained that a transport statement was not needed for the application, unless stated by the Highways Officer that one was needed for them to make their response. A management company was noted as being set up to maintain the hedge and open spaces if the application was approved. The multiple use games area (MUGA) was clarified as being an enclosed hard surface area for all-year usage.

In regards to the water meadow it was explained that drainage would be improved to create a suitable area for recreation purposes. The change of use for the water meadow would be dealt with as part of the application. Condition 7 was noted as dealing with the allegations of munitions present in the area.

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

A debate followed where the drainage policy was considered, with particular note to the existing water meadow area. Worries were expressed regarding the effect of the drainage from the water meadow. Issues of possible flooding resulting from the removal of the water meadows was discussed, and the possible need for them to be preserved.

The differences between the previous application and the current application were discussed; particular attention was given to the MUGA. The quality of grass on the casual play space, and whether it would be available for all-year usage was considered. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF was referenced, noting the need for a replacement provision to be equivalent or better in terms of quality and quantity and in a suitable location. The effect of the application on highways was also discussed.

Resolved

After a resolution to approve the application in line with the recommendation set out in the report was defeated, the Committee resolved to request the Area Development Manager to prepare a report for consideration at the next meeting setting out possible reasons for refusal for their consideration.