The Planning Department is recommending that an application to build a 179-room hotel at Strive in St Peter is refused when a group of politicians decide whether it should be passed or not next week.
Next Thursday, the Planning Committee is due to decide whether a hotel – which would be six-storeys or 22.1m at its highest – together with a conference centre, spa and swimming pool – should receive permission or not.
This would be next to Strive Health Club, along the Airport Road, between the existing gym and the Jersey Rugby Club.
Every application is accompanied by a report from a Planning Officer, who gives a recommendation; however, the politicians are under no obligation to follow it.
Both the committee and the Planning department judge each application against the often-conflicting policies of the Bridging Island Plan, which cover such principles as quality of design, environment impact and contribution to the economy.
In this case, the officer’s 35-page report concludes that it should be rejected.
Their reasons include that the proposed hotel, which is outside ‘the built-up area’ defined in the BIP, would have a “harmful impact on the character of the countryside” which would be “contrary to policy EV1”, which covers ‘visitor accommodation’.
The building […] would appear incongruous, overly dominant and imposing within the street scene and would result in harm to the landscape character of the area
Planning Officer report
They add: “The proposal would introduce a new large-scale sports, leisure and cultural facility on a site not specifically designated for this use, with limited evidence of public benefit or contribution to local sport.”
Another reason is: “The building, by virtue of its siting, bulk and massing, would both singularly and cumulatively (with the existing Strive building), result in an extension of built form that would appear incongruous, overly dominant and imposing within the street scene and would result in harm to the landscape character of the area.”
The officer also says that the application provides insufficient information in several areas, including the development’s impact on the road network, its flood risk and drainage, and its ecological impact.
They add: “The nature of the residential accommodation proposed [for staff] would fail to meet housing quality and design requirements, and compliance with adopted residential space standards would not be achieved.”
The officer report notes that 78 public submissions support the application, while 16 express concern.
The Jersey Hospitality Association, Visit Jersey, Jersey Sport, the Government’s Economy Department and the Jersey Rugby Club all support the proposal, while the Place and Spatial Planning team in the Cabinet Office object.
Ports of Jersey gave conditional support while several Government departments call for more information to be provided.