Pickles rejects Coventry Green Belt marina and housing scheme

The Ronald Wilson Trust had submitted an outline application to Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council for the development of a canal marina off Coventry Canal and up to 200 homes on a 29 hectare site within the Green Belt. The Council refused the application in November last year. The Trust subsequently submitted an application also for a canal marina off Coventry Canal and 169 homes on the same site. That application was refused in March.

The SoS said in his decision letter (60-page / 375KB PDF) that he disagreed with a Planning Inspector's conclusions that the appeals should be allowed. Pickles said that, although he acknowledged that the proposed marina facilities building could be accommodated "in a manner that would preserve the openness of the Green Belt", he agreed with the Inspector that the presence of narrowboats within the marina basin would "adversely affect the openness of the site". 

He said that the additional built development the scheme would cause would "conflict with the purposes of checking sprawl and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment". Pickles agreed with the Inspector that "substantial weight" should be attached to the harm which would be caused through the reduction in openness, and the increase in the built-up part of Hawkesbury Village at the expense of the countryside.

The Inspector had concluded that the benefits of the proposed scheme, including the provision of a marina, a community building and open space as well as the contribution it would make to the Council's housing supply, "clearly" outweighed the harm.

However, Pickles said that although he agreed with the Inspector regarding "the degree of positive weight to ascribe to provision of a marina at this location, the agreed absence of a 5 year housing land supply and the provision of affordable housing, he placed "less weight" than the Inspector on the new open space, foot and cycle paths, and the provision of allotments and a community building.

The SoS concluded that he considered the decisions to be "very finely balanced" and that, in both cases, he considered that the benefits would "not clearly" outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other identified harm.