SIR,
I appreciate that you have to take your planning information from the county council's planning officials' own report, but in your article on the application from Haberdashers' Monmouth School for Girls (HMSG), the officials' report needs some correction.
It says the revised plan from the school "was looked upon more favourably by those residents at 5 and 7 The Gardens who are more directly affected".
Obviously, if you start with an unacceptable proposal and then modify it to make a smaller impact, people would prefer the lesser evil to the greater.
This strategy is fairly standard in unpopular planning applications.
But in fact most residents of The Gardens are very much opposed to any change, as is the Town Council.
Residents at Number 7 have an interest in the application, since one of them works at HMSG.
Residents at 5 prefer the lesser option to the greater and are concerned that HMSG always gets its own way.
It is the resident at Number 2, opposite, who is arguably most affected, and that elderly resident is extremely upset by the whole business.
It is quite astonishing that planning officials at MCC see no problem in turning residential gardens into a corporate car park, because it is "in line with the county's Unitary Development Plan and would not impact on a conservation area".
What are planning officials for if not to preserve the amenity of residential areas, even those which are not to be historically conserved?
Fortunately, as your report notes, several residents attended the planning meeting, helped greatly by Jeana Hall our recent mayor, and Councillor Bob Hayward, put up a good defence of the Town Council's recommendation to refuse the application.
At least it caused the committee to decide to take a look for themselves, with a site visit on Friday 10th June.
Otherwise, I fear, it would have gone through on the nod.
Hopefully, some planning sanity will prevail.
Phil Bly
(Secretary, Monmouth Civic Society)