A CONTROVERSIAL plan which could see 39 homes built on a playing field next to Rabley Wood View in Marlborough has won permission on appeal, leaving locals saying they feel the decision calls into question the whole planning process.

After Government inspector Nick Fagan visited the land owned by the Manton Estate – which launched the appeal after its bid for planning permission was turned down last year – and the neighbouring Wiltshire Council-owned playing fields, the appeal was granted last week.

Wednesday (July 20).

The Estate has promised to provide land for a replacement children’s play area and said the area where homes could now be built is not subject to flooding.

The land, next to the River Og, flooded last year, which the Estate, owned by Guy and Ben Sangster – sons of Robert Sangster the late horse racing tycoon – argued was caused by Thames Water’s pipe works which run through the land and was not down to natural poor drainage.

Mr Fagan’s decision was announced in a report which says: “The appellant has responded that this is a misrepresentation of the facts, because the photos merely show deep water in some of the trenches created by Thames Water last winter when it was in the process of installing a new strategic water main running down the valley, and that negotiations are ongoing for the water company to properly restore the land to its former state. It also points out that its land drainage scheme for this area will ensure that it is suitable for all-year-round use as casual public open space.

“Whilst the loss of the current public open space may be avoidable the proposal does not offend the principal requirement of Wiltshire Council’s Core Policy 52 to provide green infrastructure equal to or above its current value and quality, which is exactly what the scheme would do.”

Local residents and Marlborough Town Council opposed the original scheme. This week town councillor Nick Fogg said: “What I find disappointing is that this thing has gone through all the democratic processes and then it just gets overturned.”

“I do not question the integrity of the person who came up with the decision but I just think it is a shame, it makes you wonder if localism plays any part in these things. After the long consultation and then to have this overturned at last minute doesn’t seem right to me.”

The scheme was originally refused for three main reasons, including having a harmful impact on the landscape and scenic beauty of the area, failing to provide an acceptable replacement recreation area in terms of quality and failure to submit an archaeological assessment of the site.

An archaeological assessment was carried out during the appeal. Mr Fagan’s report says that without the replacement land for public open space the proposal would be unacceptable and that if building goes ahead a plan must be issued to avoid disrupting nearby residents.

It says: “A construction method statement is necessary in order to minimise construction impact on neighbouring residents’ living conditions. A condition to deal with possible contamination of the land is required given the site’s proximity to a historic landfill site. Details of a surface water drainage scheme are necessary to prevent flooding. Ecological mitigation is necessary as set out in the submitted details to ensure that habitats are replaced and enhanced.”

A condition of the appeal being granted is that the works shall not take place until the construction method statement has been issued and must happen within two years.