‘Glamping’ site in St Peter’s faces opposition

PLANS have been submitted to develop an area of agricultural land site into a high-end ‘glamping’ site – with a pool and facilities to match.


A planning application has been submitted requesting the two-acre site at La Jaoniere in St Peter’s be converted to a camping site.

Permission for 10 glamping – glamorous camping – tents, a private swimming pool and a barn shop all incorporated with renewable energy platforms has also been asked for.

However, a formal opposition has been entered by a group of residents who say the development could spoil the area.

The St Peter’s douzaine has also asked to see the plans due to varying views among members. They will debate it at their meeting on Monday.

Danny Barnes, the landowner and man behind the plans, has been camping all of his life and thought bringing a ‘premium’ glamping site to the island could add a new dimension to the tourism market.

Comments for: "‘Glamping’ site in St Peter’s faces opposition"


Glamping is wildly popular elsewhere, this would be brilliant for Guernsey. I don't really understand the objections to the location either; it's not like they want to build a ten storey hotel! It'll be such a shame if it doesn't come off.

100% Carre.

Good idea, good luck I say.



A selfless move to help the failing tourist industry, or a cynical attempt to get one's agricultural land re-categorised so it can be developed...and possibly eventually built on…Mr Barnes…..??

Either way, shops and pools, regardless of their environmental status, and people essentially 'living' on agricultural land - who will, of course, also require all the usual utilities, with the usual disruption to the land itself, will change that landscape in a profound way, as well as somewhat marginalising the substantial amount of wildlife that undoubtedly lives there to the sidelines, as they will not wish to be surrounded by noisy people, kids, radios, traffic, pools and shops…..

I'm not sure the neighbours wish to have the wildlife haven they currently enjoy the peace and tranquillity of living next to disrupted by constant traffic, noise and people, either, and I can't say that I blame any of them.

Of course, Mr Barnes is not alone in his attempt to get his agricultural land developed, and I'm not saying that all such proposals are wrong, I know we will not be going back to fishing and farming anytime soon, however, the fact remains that the green lungs of this island are quintessential Guernsey, and ironically, by creating a holiday spot to take advantage of these natural and beautiful surroundings- and of course, pocket a considerable profit for himself - Mr Barnes will, in fact, destroy a considerable part of it.

Computer says NO.

Devil's Advocate

Good post.


How about knocking down IdleRocks and developing that as a glamping site.

Roger Irrelevant


Now that is a good idea. With further sites at the former Bon Port, Le Chalet and Manor hotels...


Don't forget Ronnie Ronalde's !! Plentiful parking, shops close by, on a bus route... better to demolish it now before that, like Idle Rocks, catches fire again !



It's not a green field by any stretch of the imagination. Set above the road and previously owned by the Lenfesty family the 'fields' were covered with overburden by the Germans when the dug out the footings for, I believe, the Houguette School part of the Maris Battery.

Since the war it's been used, varyingly, as yards and spoil tips by various contractors - latterly by Mr. Barnes for his composting business. It really is no green field.

Having reviewed the plans it's actually quite exciting and no small risk to the family. In fairly flat tourism sector, it's a brave old move for anyone to be investing in the sector and I welcome his efforts.

I'm hoping therefore that he has done his maths and spoken to Economic Development whose responsibility is for VisitGuernsey and in turn will fully support this application.

This is a reasonable and innovative application on what is a scabby old piece of land.


Neil Inder

Puchaing Le Page

Nothing to do with the fact that he's your mate then Neil?


Neil, I also know the land in question, and it is in no way 'scabby', has beautiful views, and is a prime piece of land that is ripe for development, if this thin end of the wedge were to be allowed.

Your loyalty to your personal friend is admirable, however, as a representative of the whole island, not just Danny Barnes, I think a rather more objective approach may be required when discussing such matters, just in case you'd forgotten.

As another poster pointed out, there are some derelict hotel sites that would provide the ideal place for glamping, should their owners choose to do so, until then, green fields, however scabby in your obviously biased and entirely horticulturally, environmentally UNinformed opinion, should stay just that, GREEN, and minus a sea of tents, people, screaming kids, constant traffic and racket.

Puchaing Le Page

I agree with the dog

Dont get me wrong, I'm all for supporting any initiatives that will help keep our tourism industry going and ordinarily I would support this but not at the expense of our precious and dwindling open green spaces.

Neither is this just a few posh tents in a field.

In order for Mr Barnes to build his swimming pool and barn shop (plus all the other utilities required to run this business) this would require a fundamental change of land use from agricultural to a new category that would permanently affect and very much widen the possibilities of what can be done on this land once change of use was given.

My understanding is that there are key factors that Environment will take into account when considering a fundamental change of use from say a vinery site or agricultural field such as this to be able to build on and guess what - these are the exact same things that Mr Barnes is applying for.

If he has Electricity, water, sewage a structure such as the barn shop all in place he can then re-apply for a change of use again once the barn shop is built , never bother with the swimming pool (although that would be nice I'm sure) or glamping tents and turn his shop into a dwelling and job done he got to build his house right where he wanted it!

Computer says NO - lets hope environment say the same.


Great idea! Perfect quiet spot, safely hidden away, great camping "glamping" location, another visitor option.

We used to have a lot more camping sites over here. Anything that diversifies the economy and brings in the visitors is a yes by me & very happy to have it across the valley in my parish. Yes good luck to you!

An AI Forever

Progresswithunity is always frowned on by the bitter people who have seen the gravy train change their lifestyle,12 years ago this would have been a great idea but today we have the bitter twisted locals who hate someone with a new idea




I cannot speak for others, but my grip remains remarkably firm, AAF! :)

Neither do I mistake people p'ing on my leg for a rain shower…...

Could you please explain, just for my edification, exactly HOW you have endeavoured to identify the naysayers on here as 'local', and how (if you don't possess the amazing qualities of Derren Brown) you felt confident in your assinine ass-umption that it is the locals who are bitter and twisted (allegedly), just because they don't concur with your views…...????

Indeed, unless you know me personally, AAF, I could be from Azerbaijan for all you know.


Futulas.. for your information "An AL Forevere" lives in Thailand, he has had meany diffrent names on this site.

An AI Forever


An AL Forevere ?

An AI Forever

The word on the street corner is that you are also similar in appearance to Borat


p.s. punctuation is a wonderful thing, you should try it, we love it in Azerbaijan…..!!!!!!

An AI Forever

the dog

Why write 100 words when only 10 are required.


why comment on 'locals' when you live in Thailand….?

Same reason.

Because I can.

An AI Forever

the dog

Maybe change to winalot or pal it could solve the mental issues


A change in diet may also assist you with your punctuation.

But I doubt it.


Love this idea and am sure that it would be well used by locals escaping for the weekend too. A beautiful setting and something different on offer.

futulas dog, just how much traffic do you think is going to be generated by 10 tents? I'm sure that most people looking uto use this facility if it goes ahead will do so simply for the peace and tranquility that it will offer and will appreciate the natural setting and wildlife....typically the type of people that you seem to be worried about would be looking for somewhere very different.

This Computer says yes!


Lissy. I'm sure you're delighted Danny is spreading his wings, good for him, I just don't want him spreading them over a green field when there are plenty other places where he (or someone else) can do just that.

It's not just a 'few tents', it's a pool, a shop, and a constant flow of people. And noise. And traffic. And utilities being installed, like sewage, water, electric, digging trenches to accommodate all of the aforementioned. On a green field.

You 100 per cent CANNOT guarantee what sort of people you will get staying there, and and if someone decides to throw parties every night, or have little kids screaming into the early hours, then they will, as they've paid, and they'll figure they're entitled to, and there'll be B all that can be done to stop them.



On a green field (that will have a change of use and then be ripe for development)?


There are plenty other places for this sort of thing, and I would support that. But NOT on one of our precious green spaces, NO, absolutely NOT.


errrrrr…….how is '10 wooden chalet buildings of solid construction wood frame, solid wood floor, PVC roof, tiled plumbed bathrooms with full shower and basin and fitted kitchenette' just '10 tents', exactly, Lissy……..?

Rather like Danny's friend's description of a 'scabby field', it seems to me that there is a considerable amount of wool pulling and playing things down regarding Danny's development plans occurring, that to me, makes it even more suspect.

Mr Barnes has precisely NIL experience of the tourist industry and what it takes to cater to self catering guests (such a misnomer, they require just as much 24/7 attention as hotel guests, more, actually), and evidentially isn't bothered about spending a small fortune investing in an industry that ALL current freely available info and stats suggest is failing miserably, for even the most seasoned in the industry, and that indicates to me that he either has 1. money to burn 2. no clue or 3. doesn't care if it fails, as his eyes are on the bigger prize of getting change of use to the land so he can develop it in a more permanent and far more profitable way.

Glamping, YES.

On green land, NO.


Oooh, you're like a dog with a bone you are!

My apologies I was (stupidly) relying on the GP statement in their article of the application being for 'glamorous camping - tents'. No mention in there of chalets that I can see. That said, I don't change my opinion as this still potentially offers something very different as tourist accommodation in a beautiful part of the island.

So what if Mr Barnes has nil experience in the tourist industry - everyone has to start somewhere and if he is doing this at his own risk on his own land then fair play to him. Being someone who spends the vast majority of my holidays self-catering, no we don't require 24/7 attention (in fact the less attention the better).


Perhaps Danny didn't tell you the full details…

…or tell the Press…..

...or tell the Environment Department.

Fig Tree

Go for it Mr.Barnes !


Misuse of agricultural land in the past should not be taken into account in the decision making process. If it is then it would be setting a dangerous precedent in encouraging the misuse of other agriculturally classified land in the belief that it will increase their chances of conversion at a later date.

All persons who purchase agricultural land which is rundown, misused or other should do so being mindful and respectful of that spaces classification; just as they would have to if purchasing a run down listed house to renovate.

Island Wide Voting

If those who make the decisions are still using the same giant book of golden rules ( even if slightly amended) as they used when refusing to allow a floating restaurant at Beaucette Marina then their Windows XP computers are already shouting no way Pedro

Status Quo

The submitted plans for 10 wooden chalet buildings (AN4) are described on the marketing website: solid construction wood frame, solid wood floor, PVC roof, tiled plumbed bathrooms with full shower and basin and fitted kitchenette.

This could lead to back door development, no doubt in a year or two with tiled roofs and double glazing. This will then match the facilities block, in itself the size of a very substantial house. This will soon turn into a housing estate. Estate agents would soon be running out of green belt fields to sell once a precedence is set to turn a £20,000 field into a £1m housing plot. No wonder a substantial number of locals don't want the possibility of 60 plus drunken revellers creating havoc. A salesman for this building quotes at his exhibition stand ( online video ) that these are ideal for hen parties and stag nights!! There are already plenty of designated development sites available without using green belt. The planners are not going to fall for this one ! Computer says NO NO NO


Statues Quo - So are you saying Mr Barnes intentions are not honourable, and he is lying?

And how do you calculate 60 drunk revellers in to 10 AN4 chalets .... That's 6 people per AN4 chalet that are only 5 x 7 metre interior size. I would say that's not much of a luxury camping experience, crammed in like that..... any way its still a good idea whether it there or somewhere else.


Calling this 'Glamping' is yet again more smoke screen.

THIS is glamping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glamping

So is this: https://wildguernsey.wordpress.com

Glamping is high end tents and yurts. Impermanent structures that can be moved and removed with little or no disturbance to the environment.

It goes nicely with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotourism

All looks perfectly lovely to me.

MR Barnes's proposal is NOT glamping, it is solid wooden CABINS, fully plumbed in with all the facilities, electric, water, bathroom and kitchen, habitable all year round, due to their permanence, and requiring a LOT of disturbance to the surrounding area in order to do so.

If it's cabins you want, Mr Barnes, then tell it like it is, they're holiday cabins…….but then, it doesn't sound as innocuous as 'glamping', intimating that the NIMBY's who object to this are just the small minded few, I mean, who could object to a few little tents in a scabby field, and an honest Guernsey man just trying to make a few quid…??

This whole thing stinks of B.S. from the get go, sneaking development on green land through the back door, and it's a big NO NO NO, Mr Barnes.

Devil's Advocate

It would appear that Mr. Barnes has already been trying to pull a fast one....



DA - Mmm!! makes interesting reading, I must say.


Well, wow, that certainly is some seriously interesting info you found there, DA..!

Now, if memory serves me correctly (as I don't often go walkies around that neck of the woods these days, it's the age…), there is a large vinery not a stone's throw from Mr Barnes's proposed development site, that has one of these large wooden house size 'sheds' already erected on it, that, I understand, is owned by one of his close relations……..

quelle coincidence….!

Perhaps developing our precious green land via the back door is the new family business…;)

Roger Irrelevant

A fine piece of investigative journalism!

Devil's Advocate

Someone's got to do it, 'cos the GP won't!


I would agree that all new tourism related projects should be encouraged, but not at the expense of green sites. Such a project would be better suited if located on a disused, derelict vinery.

"Glamping" is one of those so called new ideas talked about in Tourism's marketing strategy document. Although it can help increase holiday accommodation options on the island, Tourism have over-rated its potential.


Well if its the field I have just looked at on Google Maps it seems there are a couple of abandoned cars in the field he might have to move first to Glamp it up.


Let the guy have a go. If it fails and doesn't attract business then there should be conditions that any buildings or whatever are removed if visitors aren't using it. A little entrepreneurial thinking deserves support and as I highlighted in another post there are so many nimbys on this island who think of nothing but there own self centred lives.

Projects like this often have a limited shelf life - 10 -20 or even 30 years but the environment is always easy to return to it's original state. Local pubs, St Peters store and other businesses will probably benefit a little as well

Well done sir for having a go!


To do this proposed development, Mr Barnes requires a CHANGE OF USE to the existing green field status of the land.

He didn't manage to get his 'horticultural shed' two years ago, that he suddenly doesn't need, so now he's having a go with this.

Once he has this, whether the solid structure holiday cabins fail - or not - he will still have his green field recategorised, at which point, he can, under the law, then apply to develop the land.

And that, I believe, taken all things into consideration (ie. failing tourism, b all experience in the trade, Mr Barnes's failure to explain exactly what his 'glamping' site will consist of, that is, solid plumbed in structures, not just 'a few posh tents', and his previous - failed- attempt), using the same architects, I note, is EXACTLY what he is looking for….

IF tourism really was a viable, profitable past time, wouldn't the whole Idle Rocks rebuild be going ahead, and hotels expanding and reporting profits, instead of going bust and closing down…??

Glamping's been in fashion for YEARS, if it really was a goer over here, wouldn't some of the existing campsites have entirely converted to that and be making a fortune….??

Seems like an incredibly bold / foolish and VERY costly punt on a whole bunch of maybes and unknowns, unless, of course, Mr Barnes has money to burn…or other plans in mind….

Greenhouse sites have always been allowed to have a 'shed', perhaps the reason his close relation down the road was somehow allowed permission to build one that in size and proportions looks just like a house...), but green fields are a different ballgame entirely, which is how I hope Envo will see it.

What grinds my gears is people sneaking in development via the back door, with vague, misleading, smokescreen statements about 'horticultural sheds' and 'glamping,' to get good trusting people on board to assist in shouting down the cynical naysayers, whilst potentially planning something entirely different, that intends to run roughshod all over the laws the rest of us have to abide by and ruin what's left of our precious greenland.

It's underhand, it's dishonest, and it's not on.

IF someone wants to develop a field, or a vinery, the FINE, just SAY so, 'I want to build on it', and if it's all OK by the laws of the land, then go for gold, not much I can say to that.

The fact is, in this case, this proposition stinks as much as Mr Barnes's compost heap, and the computer should categorically say NO and on your bike.


Btw, reference sheds, had a few in my time, all for 'em, everyone loves a man cave, but never forked out god knows how much for an architect to DESIGN one for me…………oh, same one who's designed these cabins…….

…………...errrrrrr…...bit odd, wouldn't you say……...??



Surely, if there was a market for 'glamping' wouldn't one of our existing campsites which have been established for decades be giving it a go?

Devil's Advocate

The Baillotterie now have some log cabins.

Puchaing Le Page

Well I am more convinced than ever now that this is just another attempt to circumnavigate envrironmental polices having read DA link to Mr Barnes original

attempt to build on this land in 2015. Fortunately this was rejected and I see no reason that this latest attempt will not also go the same way.

This is an extract from environments summary in which they stress that this is an area of high landscape quality adjoining a conservation area - not a 'scabby old piece of land' as Neil would have us believe.

This site is not a redundant horticultural site, is in an Area of High Landscape Value and the application proposes a sizable building where none currently exisits.

Proposals must also satisfy other planning policies, including RGEN5 on character and amenity, RGEN6 on Design, RCE1 protecting open land, RCE2 landscape character and RCE3 on Areas of High Landscape Quality. In this case, the proposed building would be visible from the surrounding area and would have a significant adverse effect on the visual quality and landscape character of the area, and the adjoining Conservation Area, introducing built development into an area of generally open and undeveloped land, contrary to Rural Area Plan policies RGEN5, RGEN6, RCE1, RCE2, RCE3 and RCE10.

The application is therefore refused as contrary to Rural Area Plan Policies RGEN5, RGEN6, RCE1, RCE2, RCE3, RCE10, RE7 and RE7B.

If this shed was rejected in 2015 then how could he possibly hope to get permission for a barn shop, swimming pool and 10 fully fitted out cabins?

Well clearly he and his architects have gone away, studied environmental policies again and come back with proposals that they hope will tick all the boxes required to satisfy the criteria required for such a radical change of use.

The bottom line is that this is a green field and needs to be protected from speculators trying to play Environment at their own policies.

Devil's Advocate

"If this shed was rejected in 2015 then how could he possibly hope to get permission for a barn shop, swimming pool and 10 fully fitted out cabins?"

Because that's tourism, which is probably 'encouraged' under the policies in the Island Development Plan.

'Areas of high landscape value' no longer exist in the IDP, so that aspect is no longer applicable. The policies are also all different now.

In a nutshell, as the field is outside the 'main areas' and 'local centres' there is no way to build housing on it unless it's through subdivision of exisiting housing or conversion of existing redundant buildings. The only way to do this on this site is to build buildings for another purpose (e.g.'glamping'), make them redundant, then convert them.


Suppose if he gets permission we really will have to extend the runway, to cater for the increase in visitors.


Why are people always so negative about somebody showing a bit of initiative to increasing the tourism figures and trying to put Guernsey back on the map as a tourist destination - we need to get tourists back on the island - not the cruise passengers who come - spend a quid on the round the island bus and maybe buy a bottle of water! We need change we need to reach out and give the tourists something different......I really hope this gets the go ahead....


It's not negative, it's realism, and understanding that sometimes people say what other's want to hear to get what they want….even if it's only a less than half truth.

There is, plain and simple, no case for this proposal, and Mr Barnes has already been turned down once for having a 'shed' on this same field that somewhat bizarrely he had designed by an architect……

seriously, who DOES that…????? Do you know of ONE other person…??????

Think think think kazza, stop buying the dream you're being sold, and engage your logical, rational brain.

I am ALL for glamping, if anyone is naive enough to believe that it's the saviour of our doomed tourist industry, whoop de do, just not on a green field, and most certainly NOT as a premise to the 'something else' that I strongly feel (bearing in mind what I've already stated) Mr Barnes is planning.


Sure, why not.

Developments on a green field under a smoke screen of something else…?

Absolutely NOT.


I fully agree - people who do things to try and encourage tourism back to the island should be praised and given every possible assistance. But not at the expense of taking away green sites.

Some one above mentioned Idle Rocks, that would be a superb setting for an upmarket "glamping" site, and, although the costs would be higher due to the demolition needed, would be bring in a much higher revenues due to its superb location with its views and access to scenic walks. Some of the disused, derelict vineries could also be re-developed as unique forms of holiday accommodation.


I'm with the Dog and others of a similar mind here.

I don't really care whether Mr Barnes' motives are to benefit tourism or a back door development scheme; it's one thing putting up a few tents for the summer, it's quite something else developing a permanent campsite facility in the middle of rural Guernsey that will completely change the whole character of the area.

The issue of precedent also has to be considered. If this gets the go ahead, what's to stop others from demanding the same permission to change the use of agricultural land - more campsites, hotels maybe? It would be difficult to agree to this one and then refuse others on the basis of protecting agricultural land.

Sorry, whilst there's nothing wrong with entrepreneurship and development some things need to be protected - and in my book what's left of rural Guernsey is one of them. Enough of the island has gone under concrete as it is.

GFC fan

It's a shame to see a lot of opposition to the glamping idea. I think it will be a fantastic addition to the local tourist offering.

Puchaing Le Page

GFC Fan.

I'm not opposed to the glamping idea at all - infact I LOVE the idea but I love my island home more, and want it protected from people who are clearly trying to play the Environment department by its own policies to build on an agricultural green field which should absolutely under NO circumstances be built on in any way - EVER.


In case you haven's seen Mr Barnes application these are not some whimsical 'environmental 'fairy dust' tents that float off the ground with magical bunny rabbits skipping through rainbows serving Pimms to happy campers.

He wants to also build 10 fully fitted out timber cabins with all mod cons and utilities to service these tents and include a shop and a swimming pool. All in a green field next to a conservation site in the middle St Peter's most beautiful countryside.

He tried 2 years ago with the help of the same architects to get permission to build a timber frame shed on the same site for his 'business' and this was rejected. Now they are trying another approach which I believe is just a smoke screen to get the land re-catagorised so that he can develop it.

Now either you don't know that or you don't care - and would rather see what is left of Guernsey's precious open spaces and countryside lost forever for the sake of 'progress'.


I agree Puchaing.

I was excited by the idea at first, and while I still love the idea of glamping and really hope the idea gets tried out at a suitable spot on the island, I'm very much against this sneaky approach. Guernsey's countryside is finite and I hate seeing it being destroyed for a quick buck - once its gone, its gone.

Yes to glamping, but not here.



La Bailloterie Camping in the Vale at www.campinginguernsey.com offer glamping tents and camping cabins.


Just shows how out of touch I am. Last time I stayed there it was hardly glamping, not unless that includes pooping in a slit trench!

Devil's Advocate

All those concerned about the loss of a greenfield site should put in a representation, because it is not a foregone conclusion that this will be rejected.

You can pop into Frossard house environment department to look at the plans. You are allowed to take photos of them. It's application number FULL/2017/0947


How to make a representation info here:-


You can make a representation by email. It is important that a representation is made on valid grounds as per the link above. If you wish to make a good one you need to read the island development plan and refer your points to the policies within it. Looking at planning decisions such as the one above will give you a good idea how the planners judge applications. The planning webmap is an incredibly useful tool.


Just out of interest, is there a sizeable fee associated with change of use? If not there should be.

For all change of use applications, an independent real estate assessor should value the land as a green field and also value the land as whatever the category of change of use they are applying for. The applicant should pay the difference of the valuations to the states as the final part of the application (whether that applicant is a private individual or a states department themselves). This would put a stop to the purchasing of green fields with the specific intention of maximising profit through change of use.