Planners say yes, despite 69 objections

NEARLY 70 objections were not enough to stop Environment Department officials from recommending that Kings Health Club’s controversial plans for an apartment complex be approved.

John Surcombe, who lives next door to the proposed development at Kings, said the 13-apartment block would completely take away his privacy and create a blot on the landscape. (Pictures by Tom Tardif, 1329303)
John Surcombe, who lives next door to the proposed development at Kings, said the 13-apartment block would completely take away his privacy and create a blot on the landscape. (Pictures by Tom Tardif, 1329303)

NEARLY 70 objections were not enough to stop Environment Department officials from recommending that Kings Health Club’s controversial plans for an apartment complex be approved.

It is proposed that 13 apartments will be built on the site of two of the club’s tennis courts.

The project would also see a new two-way entrance to the leisure centre, which would be created between the current entrance and the Belmont Road junction.

Now the professional planners have given their approval, the Environment Department political board will decide at an open planning meeting whether to grant permission for the development.

The planning application report shows that 56 letters were received about the project. Of these, 17 were in support, stating that it would enhance the area, improve the access and allow for more-modern sports facilities to be built. But 39 submissions were objections and one of those was a letter which had 30 signatures.

Comments for: "Planners say yes, despite 69 objections"

racketmaestro

So no surprises there then and why didnt other oners of Kings club get permission

Woody

Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I remember it's the Planners job to check if it meets all of the applicable planning laws, if it does then they 'recommend' it for approval on that basis... it's then the Environment Boards job to decide if it's in the public interest and to consider objections etc.

Which if that's the case, this headline is a bit misleading as it hasn't gone up against the board yet.

John Surcombe

You are correct, the final decision has not been made. It will be made by the Board on Tuesday. The approval is just the civil servants' recommendation at this stage.

If you want to see the process the planners have gone through to reach their conclusion, then I recommend you read their report which is here:

http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=83202&p=0

The open planning meeting is this Tuesday coming, at 9.15 am in meeting rooms 1 & 2, Institute of Health Studies, Princess Elizabeth Hospital.

russm

The current owner bought the club to build residential units on it. He claims he needs the profits to redevelop the club but most members believe the redevelopment will never go ahead. The club has been run down over the the period he has owned it with concentration solely on providing gym facilities whilst trying to rid the club of those who play racquet sports.

This development should never be permitted, lets hope the Environment Department have the balls to prevent it going ahead.

Just Sayin'

I should imagine these won't be first time buyer apartments either...

JH

It's not a public vote - it doesn't matter how many objections are lodged; it's the substance of those objections (i.e. what valid planning reasons they give) that matter. Therefore, petitions carry very little weight.

...until States Members get all political and worry about their voters...

islander

I object to the opening on Belmont road junction.Filter in turn into the Croutes is dangerous from Bemont road lets not make things worse.

I hope for the neighbours and road users including pedestrians sake it falls for safety reasons.

Radical

That area of town has seen plenty enough of development with the Hermitage and the new development in Stanley road. Planning needs to look at the overall startegy of the new building targets, plenty of homeowners have land / greenhouses that they could develop which would a) geographically spread the building across the Island and b) allow Islanders to profit from development rather than making a rich Company even richer.

racketmaestro

So how come one of the previous owners like Mr Neil Corner and Hadrian Wakeham had there plans turned down.

and Mr Wakeham would have kept all the raceket players at Kings like it should be.

simon

oh well at least we know where there are a spare set of traffic lights if needed a!

Charlie G

Now let's see....correct me if i'm wrong,but was it not the same dept,who not

so long ago,kikked up a fuss over some HARMLESS poppies growing,at Cobo????and infact the Ice cream lady got a rapping over the knuckles for it....and the ORDERING of the removal of the German hut at Oatlands ????

But hey,just "bulldoze" over all the "Kings " men (sorry ,persons) and carry on up the building regardless !!

Sure someone is going to correct me?? Anyway we all know, here it's not what you know,but who you know!

Local Historian

There was a long debate throughout the 1960s between the then owners and the 'Beauties Commission', as the planning authority was then called, in regard to permission to build houses on the site.

This debate eventually culminated in an appeal by the owners to the Royal Court which was turned down.

Only when the appeals process had been exhausted was the site put up for sale for 'recreational purposes'. Clearly subsequent owners felt constrained by the Royal Court decision.