Marlborough College has suffered a major setback in its controversial plans to install a Puffin crossing in Bridewell Street, to provide a safe way for students from its new female hostel at the former Ivy House Hotel to cross to the campus.
Despite a recommendation for approval from Wiltshire planning officer Charlotte Douglas, the council’s Eastern Area Planning Committee has rejected the initial part of the scheme by a resounding six votes to nil.
The College was seeking permission to create new gated entrances on either side of the crossing, in particular knocking a hole in its main listed wall on the Bath Road, where two crossings already exist for College campus use.
Without this consent, the consideration by Wiltshire’s highways development control team of the introduction of a third crossing, now the subject of a four-week consultation, is considered unlikely to succeed.
A “demolition job” on the College’s hole in the wall plans was launched by Marlborough town councillors last month, who voted unanimously against the scheme, members pointing out that students already ignored the existing crossings, often darting across the road.
They feared a new crossing at a narrow section of the A4 would cause enormous traffic congestion back into Marlborough High Street, the reason a similar proposal in 2008 was also rejected, as well as noise for neighbouring residents.
And they have been supported by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which has also questioned an increase in air pollution caused by traffic being held up at crossings.
But the hammer blow came at last night’s area planning committee when town councillor Nick Fogg (pictured), also one of Marlborough’s two Wiltshire councillors, pulled the planning recommendation to pieces.
“I’m glad that good sense prevailed,” Councillor Fogg, a former Mayor of Marlborough who was once a teacher at the College, told Marlborough News Online.
“While I appreciate the need to safeguard those to whom, we have a duty, the overall view was that this scheme could be counter productive to achieving that objective.”
But one telling point came from High Street resident Liz Rolph, one of the objectors at the meeting. It was the fact that since the Ivy House Hotel is on one side of the High Street, the 50 senior girls living there would still have to cross two other roads before arriving at the Puffin crossing.
However, the main consideration on the agenda was the quality of the new gates being proposed by the College for its main boundary wall and that at its arts building on the other side of the road, the designs already having been subjected to amendments called for by Wiltshire Council’s conservation officer, who considered the listed boundary wall “significant and sensitive.”
Marlborough town council was adamant in its own objections, pointing out that even the publicly displayed planning application notices were “at variance” and “thus invalidating the application.”
As to the main application, the council objected “most strongly on the grounds that the proposed alteration to the footpath and adjoining listed wall are not necessary as two other crossings already existed.”
And it added that “the proposed additional Puffin crossing would cause unacceptable noise levels to nearby residents and would result in unacceptable traffic congestion at peak periods.”
Planning officer Charlotte Douglas nevertheless recommended approval of alterations to the existing boundary walls and gates, informing councillors that they would “have limited impact on the fabric and setting of the listed building and the Marlborough conservation area” as and when a Puffin crossing was installed.
The six committee members disagreed.
Marlborough College has been invited to comment on the decision.
Bridewell St Pic from the Marlborough College Planning Application