Angus councillors have refused planning permission for a housing development on the site of the disused Wellbrae Primary School in Forfar.
The full application was for four new houses and eight new flats to the north of the school building and for conversion of the listed former school into flats. In addition the developers applied for listed building consent relating solely to the former school building.
They were given permission in principle to alter the building for conversion to housing but no homes can be formed until such time as an acceptable planning application is put forward and approved.
An objector to the proposed development complained that plans to remove the central roof of the school amounted to “vandalism” of a prominent Forfar building. The plans include removing the lantern roof above the former games hall to create a central courtyard.
An agent for developers Taylor Shepherd Homes said the development would help the struggling construction industry.
Angus Council previously agreed to sell the site on condition that the developer secured planning permission and listed building consent for redevelopment.
At Tuesday’s meeting of the council’s development standards committee several local objectors spoke out against the proposals. Mrs P. Taylor, a resident of Wellbraehead, was against removal of the central roof.
“The roof is the pinnacle of the building and the hall underneath is the heart,” Mrs Taylor said. “To remove this and leave the building open to the air would not only remove a great deal of the building’s special character but would tear the heart out of the building and we would be left with an empty shell.”
Isabella Ross, who lives on the boundary of the school, said her privacy would be “compromised” if the development went ahead. She is also concerned about the proposed alterations to the school building.Act of vandalism”Given permission has already been refused for demolition of the school, to now allow removal of the central roof would amount to an act of vandalism,” Mrs Ross said.
She pointed out that the planned three, four and five-bedroomed homes were more suitable for families but the garden areas and public space was “severely limited” and fell “well short” of the council’s own recommendations.
Freda Napier of Forfar Community Council said her organisation was opposed to the development, in particular the proposed removal of the lantern roof.
“The lantern roof is an integral part of the listed building and should not be removed,” she said. “It is beautiful and would cost a fortune to replace.”
The community council was concerned about the extra volume of traffic and inadequate parking for the size of the development. Lack of local consultation was also highlighted.
“The developer had the temerity to bring forward these plans for such an important and historical site without consulting the public first,” Mrs Napier said.
The Rev Oliver Vellacot said he belonged to a group that was interested in creating a community centre on the site and making it available for church use but he was told that councillors could only consider the formal applications before the committee.
Agent for the developers Roger Brunton said the nub of the matter was a difference of opinion over what constituted “over-development.” He also took issue with claims that the proposed new buildings would block views of the listed building, saying there were already blocks of flats in the area and 40 feet trees “obscuring the elevations.”
Urging the development be allowed to go ahead, Mr Brunton said, “This will give the local building industry a well-needed uplift because, as you know, we are struggling construction wise.”
Councillor David Fairweather said he had planned to support the recommendation that the full planning application be refused and the listed building consent approved. He changed his mind after listening to the objectors. Planning convener David Lumgair moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor John Rymer.
Councillor Bob Spink moved an amendment that both applications be refused, seconded by Mr Fairweather. The motion was carried by six votes to two.