Tribunal grants permission for build at La Pointe after appeal

La Pointe on Braye Road was purchased by Hillstone Guernsey Ltd for £420,000 nearly three years ago. Despite sitting inside the Bridge’s outer boundary under planning policy – meaning it could be developed – applications for eight houses and six houses were both rejected, based on the size of the developments and the impact on the protected trees.

The planners recommended a smaller scheme for two three-bedroom, two-storey houses to be approved, but the political Development & Planning Authority board rejected it at an open planning meeting, stating that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on protected buildings in the area.

Now the planning appeal tribunal has rejected that argument and said the project can have planning permission.

Development & Planning Authority president Victoria Oliver voted that the project get permission at the open planning meeting, but lost the vote after her fellow board members rejected it. She said the politicians had been swayed by public opinion, but what they had voted for was not backed by planning policy.

‘I think it will be a real shame, as that is the last green bit along Braye Road,’ she said.

‘But the policy says it can and the policy has to win. I think the houses will look nice there, but it is the loss of another green field.’

She said open planning meetings were an important element in making the planning process open and transparent. Despite the relatively rigid policies, she said there was room for the DPA to be subjective on applications.

Of the four occasions where the political board has gone against the advice of the planners, two have been overturned – La Pointe and Les Blanches, behind Manor Stores. But OPM decisions on Kings Club and White Gables in St Saviour’s were both upheld.

Appeal tribunal presiding member Stuart Fell raised some concerns about the OPM decision on La Pointe.

‘First, it is unclear as to which protected buildings would be adversely affected in the event that the appeal development were to be built,’ he said in the tribunal’s decision.

‘Second, there is a lack of precision as to which specific aspects of the roofscape and elevational design of the new houses are considered to be so outlandish as to cause harm to or setting of the unspecified protected buildings.’

He said the tribunal was happy with changes suggested by Hillstone since earlier proposals, which meant the development would not have a big visual impact on the area, especially with the existing trees being kept. The panel also felt the development would not have a big enough impact on the protected buildings to be rejected.

Simon Holland, from Hillstone, said it had been a stressful and expensive process to get to this stage. It has cost him tens of thousands of pounds to fight the rejection decisions and he said the States would also have spent thousands of taxpayers’ money in this process.

‘I’m pleased that effectively the legal system we have has taken over and planning policies have been applied based on the Island Development Plan, as it should have been originally, rather than the views of the DPA political board,’ he said.

Director of Planning Jim Rowles said the appeal costs for the department had been minimal.

He added that open planning meetings were part of the democratic process.

‘Some committee decisions will be upheld on appeal and some not, depending on the relative strength and merits of the arguments,’ he said.

Mr Holland’s team is now drawing up the final details required under the new planning conditions.

He was hopeful that work on the two homes would start at the end of the summer and be completed within a year.