The controversial Chiswick House School outline development permit application to construct a primary school in Pembroke is set to go before the Planning Authority Board on Thursday.

It is pertinent to note that the case documents available online do not show any new documentation filed since 2017, when the whole public uproar over the proposed development emerged. A protest had even seen the Environment Minister, Jose Herrera, attend.

This application is seeking ‘Outline Development’ permission to construct a primary school with 36 classes plus ancillary facilities, outdoor sport facilities, and 82 outdoor parking spaces. “The proposed facility shall consist of junior school which incorporates a kindergarten, over four levels above ground, together with a number of miscellaneous facilities at basement and above ground level. The site area is circa 15,927 square metres. The proposal is designed to meet an educational system which caters for 880 students distributed in 36 learning spaces of 8 teaching levels. The school is proposed to have ancillary facilities inclusive extensive spaces for outdoor playing and sport facilities. The total footprint area proposed is approximately 2,955sqm.”

The site is located within the Pembroke Development Brief area and covers a total area of approximately 15,927 square metres. It is an irregularly shaped quadrant with varying gradients of rock formation. The site has a frontage on Triq Gabriele Henin and on Triq il- Mediterran, Pembroke. The predominant land uses in the vicinity of the site are residential to the East and South part of the site and educational to the West part of the site.

The Environment and Resources Authority (ERA) noted that the site earmarked for development is located within development zone as detailed in the North Harbour Local Plan and is located in the immediate vicinity of the Pembroke rifle ranges, the Pembroke Natura 2000 site and the residential area of Pembroke.

In view of the fact that the proposed development has a site area of circa 16,000 sqm lies within an area not designated for such purpose, the proposal qualifies for an Environment Impact Statement, the ERA noted.

The case officer noted that certain policy concludes that any proposals requiring development permission that would, in the opinion of the Planning Authority, prejudice the objectives of this Development Brief for the area will be refused. “During internal discussions it was considered that since the development brief for this site has not been completed, this application is premature.”

“In letter dated 10th January, 2018, the architect was informed that as part of the studies for the preparation of the Development Brief for the area, the Authority commissioned a Traffic Impact Statement to assess the potential impact of development on this site. An interim report identified several considerable areas of concerns. The Executive Council has thus decided to halt the process of the Development Brief until there is the necessary national infrastructure in place.”

“Following a two year suspension period, as such, considering the above, there was no option but to proceed for a decision with the latest available information. In view that the proposal is considered to prejudice the objectives and formulation of this Development Brief and is therefore considered premature, the proposal is recommended for refusal since it cannot be executed in line with the policy of the North Harbour Local Plan.”

The case officer also highlighted that the Environment and Resources Authority was consulted and noted that the proposal qualifies for an Environment Impact Statement, and thus the submission of a Project Description Statement (PDS) is required. The report also noted that the application qualifies for an Appropriate Assessment. “Additional detailed issues (e.g. potential effects on protected trees; traffic management and air quality issues) will need to be addressed through the above-mentioned assessments.”

“The architect and the applicant were informed of the request for further information in letter dated 29th August, 2017 but following a two year suspension period there is no option but to proceed with the latest available information.”

The case officer is recommending that the project be refused, as it runs counter to policy of the North Harbours Local Plan “which requires the formulation of a Development Brief for the area. In the absence of the Brief, the proposal is considered premature as it will prejudice the objectives of the Development Brief.”