Chalet redevelopment back to square one

They have been told they must market the property for another two years.

After years of talking with the planners, a planning appeals panel agreed with the site owner, Vista Hotels, last autumn that the property above Fermain was not viable as a hotel. But the redevelopment project was rejected due to the design of the 17 flats proposed.

Project architects Andrew Merrett and Andrew Ozanne, from Lovell Ozanne, were shocked to discover that if they re-applied with a new design, they will have to again show the site is unviable.

Planning Services said any application had to be assessed against the current States-approved planning policy.

The issue has arisen as the Rural Area Plan was replaced by the Island Development Plan about 18 months ago, which means there is a new set of planning rules.

In the past the planners would require a hotel site to be marketed for at least two years to show it was not viable.

Under the new planning guidance, a site must be marketed with three agents for two years. So while the Chalet has been marketed by Martel Maides and a UK association since 2012, it falls short of the new three agent requirement.

Mr Ozanne said they thought that after proving the hotel was not viable, they would not have to do so again.

‘We only discovered we needed three [agents] a couple of weeks ago and the complication is that one of them has to be a UK agent,’ he said.

‘The difficulty is that it has been accepted that it is not now part of the visitor stock. But they [the planners] are applying the principle that this is visitor accommodation.’

The hotel has been closed since 2012 and plans to redevelop it and keep it as one were abandoned as too expensive.

A comprehensive process of hearings into the new planning policy were held, which both Mr Merrett and Mr Ozanne were involved in. But the tourist accommodation planning guidance was introduced after an amendment from Deputy Heidi Soulsby as the plan was being debated in the States, so could not be discussed by the public.

Deputy Soulsby was keen to support economically beneficial tourist-related development, while maintaining an adequate stock of visitor accommodation.

But Mr Ozanne said the new guidance went too far. He was concerned that it would deter investment in redeveloping unviable sites, by making it too difficult.

A Planning Services spokesman said: ‘Any planning application submitted will be assessed against the States-approved planning policies of the Island Development Plan. Clearly, it will be important for the success of an application for the applicant to provide sufficient relevant information to demonstrate compliance with the policies of the IDP.’

Last September the appeals panel which heard the case said it was not viable to redevelop the hotel.

‘The existing hotel premises provide an unsatisfactory standard of accommodation and facilities and at the time of the decision were not useful or capable of being used as an hotel,’ said tribunal chairman Jonathan King at the time.

‘Notwithstanding its poor condition, the hotel building would be physically capable of being upgraded, adapted or changed to an alternative type of visitor accommodation to a satisfactory standard. However, the refurbishment necessary ... could not be achieved at reasonable expense.'