Outrage as appeal submitted for 'monster monk mansions' in place of disused Prinknash Abbey

A 12-strong community of Benedictine monks abandoned the Roman Catholic monastery in 2008 and moved back to their nearby home of St Peter's Grange.

After years of lying empty the religious building was sold to Tetbury-based developer Edward Blake Ltd.

In 2015, with the full backing of the monks, plans were submitted to knock down their 1972 monastery and make way for the luxury development which included 10 three-storey houses, with price tags of several hundred thousand and a million pounds.

These were denied by Stroud District Council on December 17 with planners raising concerns over scale, impact, sustainability and ecology.

However, last Wednesday an appeal was submitted by Edward Blake Ltd on behalf of the monks seeking to have the plans approved.

This is far from welcome news for the owner of the neighbouring Bird and Deer Park, Melanie Meigh, whose father opened the park in 1973, she says the plans would eat up 40 per cent of her car park.

“These are monster monk mansions, and this whole thing has been like a back-door application, there are no signs up in the car park about the appeal even though it was put in last week, and I wasn’t even told about it,” said Melanie, has run the park since 2008.

“This appeal comes at the quietest time of the year for us too, so when inspectors come they won’t get the real idea of how busy we are for most of the year, and there won’t be as many people visiting to see the appeal notice – if one had been put up.

“I thought it had all gone quiet, I didn’t expect it to come back [the plans] and I feel disgusted.

“When my dad died in 2008 we had annual footfall of around 6,000 and now we are way over 40,000, I need all my current car parking space and then some, never mind having it reduced.

“I need to keep the entire floorspace that is already there, it can fit around 250 cars but around Christmas and other peak teams I often need at least 280, so we can’t afford to lose any.

“I have given so much back to the community by keeping this place going with my team, it brings a lot of tourism to the area.

“I think Stroud needs to back its green credentials and oppose this decimation of the countryside, it would have such a damaging effect on what is one of the most beautiful sites in the area.

“We’ve receive a £175,000 grant from Defra via the EU in the past due to our work in conservation and promoting rural tourism, I think it would be a huge waste of tax payers money if we were to go under now.”

In the proposal presented by Edward Blake Ltd, it states: “The proposal, due to the demolition and substantial amount of landscaping will enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the setting of the historically important Grade I St. Peter’s Grange.”

Within the appeal document, compiled by Hunter Page Planning, based in Cheltenham, it states: “The appellant considers this proposal to be sustainable development that provides social, economic and environmental benefits.

“Uniquely, the appeal proposal replaces a large and imposing building that has historically scared the landscape.

“Despite extensive marketing, the building has been empty for 10 years and no new use has been found.

“Unequivocally, the austere elevations and the bulk of the building are alien and detrimental to the landscape and its replacement will be an enhancement to the Cotswold AONB.

“Equally, it has been set out that the removal of this dominant feature will also enhance the significantly important heritage assets at the park.

It is also claimed that the development would support the employment of 43 people and generate £100,000 in taxes per annum (including £12,860 in council tax).

“The council has not properly considered what will happen to the building if the site is not brought back into beneficial re-use.

“The potential is that the building becomes dilapidated, unsafe and attracts anti-social behaviour and vandalism.

“Even if it were capable of re-use, the future use of the building could be significantly more intense than the scheme for 10 dwellings, which is plainly not desirable.”