Plans for coastal homes refused

Friday 22 December 2017

Plans to build four townhouses, a block of six apartments and one three-bedroom home along the south coast at Grève d'Azette have once again been refused amid fears that they would "box-in" neighbouring properties.

This was the second application for the development after a previous one was refused on the grounds of access, scale and mass of the building.

The plans to develop what has been described as "a rundown part of Greve D’Azette" included demolishing a corner shop and five existing homes to make way for four townhouses, a block of six apartments with one one-bedroom apartment and three four-bedroom apartments, as well as one three-bedroom home – all boasting coastal views and beach access. 

Owners of the neighbouring properties shared their concerns about the size of the development. Andy Fleet spoke on behalf of the owners of Roche de la Mer, which is right next to the development. The house has been at the centre of media scrutiny after Express revealed that its previous owner, Alan Luce, had been charged £30,000 by the States on the basis that the property had allegedly encroached on land belonging to the Public.

Mr Fleet described the development as detrimental to the area and said that the three storey design was "out-of-character." He also said that the area was already very busy and that the presence of new residents would cause congestion and impact road safety.

John Hill, whose property is located between the proposed new buildings, said it would cause him to lose privacy. He also told the Planning Committee that the height of the buildings meant he would not be able to get as much direct sunlight in his garden.  

Pictured: A view of the development, which will include a bus stop, from La Grande Route de St Clement. (Gallaher Architects)

The lead architect for the development, Justin Gallaher of Gallaher Architects, said that they had taken into consideration the comments made previously and had tried to minimise the impact of the building on neighbouring property. He also noted that they were open to dealing with the "small extent of any possible overlooking from balconies" by using screening around them.

Mr Gallaher also told the Committee that although the development would be raised slightly above existing openings on the sea wall, they had had detailed discussions with the Department for Infrastructure who had apparently shown their support.

Mr Gallaher explained that because the development would take some buildings away from the sea wall, the DfI had said the encroachment was minor, which the architect was advised to "get in writing," possibly amid fears that the owners would later be fined for an encroachment. Jersey Property Holdings recently published a new policy which attempts to define the 'Foreshore' as being everything between the “high water mark of full spring tide,” and the “lowest mark of tide" and attempts to set out when they will go after encroachments. 

The Planning Committee refused their application unanimously. Chairman Juliette Gallichan said it was "a real opportunity to tidy up the area," but said she couldn't accept the proposal because one property risked being boxed in by it. Deputy Scott Wickenden agreed with the Chairman, saying the development was overbearing.