Plans for Rocquaine cottage rejected after DPA objections

The planners had recommended Mr J West’s application to demolish Halekulani – a detached cottage on the coast to the north of Fort Grey – and replace it with a modern design two-storey build be approved.

But the political Development & Planning Authority board disagreed at an open planning meeting, leading to the application being rejected. Initially planning was worried about steel cladding on the first floor.

This was replaced first with slate cladding and then a final compromise for the red zinc cladding. This settled the planners’ concerns, but not the public’s.

There were 28 objections, raising worries about the scale, form and design of the replacement dwelling.

Some felt that the steel cladding was unattractive, while the slate cladding was felt by some to give the building a dark, industrial and foreboding appearance.

The final compromise also did not settle all the concerns, with the report noting some felt the red zinc cladding was not in keeping with the style of other properties in the area, as the previously proposed steel or grey slate.

St Peter’s parish constables noted that the surrounding buildings were traditional single-storey Guernsey cottages, meaning the proposed structure would have dominant impact on the area.

The Office of Environmental Health and Pollution Regulation raised worries about the original proposed steel cladding, noting consideration of the impact on the marine environment and nearby oyster beds was needed.

In their considerations, the planners noted that while the pre-1898 building was historic, significant alterations and extensions meant it did not make a particular positive contribution to the area and the current structure was not listed.

In terms of the scale, the planners said the proposal would result in an increase to the scale and mass of the dwelling, with the ridge height increasing by 2.6 metres compared to the existing dwelling and approximately 1.2 metres compared to the previously approved replacement dwelling.

While the size and shape of the replacement dwelling would be larger than the cottages to the north, the planners said it would be similar to the scale of the buildings to the south.

They stated that good quality materials would be used, with the base of the building made of heavyweight stone to mimic the sea wall and the other boundary walls in the area.

In general, the planners said the project should be approved.

‘Overall, the contemporary two-storey design would not detract from the openness of the area and would not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the local built environment.’

But the political board disagreed. At an open planning meeting the Development & Planning Authority rejected the application.

In the planning decision it was noted that while property owners can have personal choice in design matters, the use of pigmento red zinc cladding for the entire first floor element of the building did not successfully respect the palette of traditional materials in the area.

‘By virtue of its design, and particularly the proposed materials for the entire first floor element of the building, the proposal would not respect the character of the local built environment,’ the rejection notice states.

‘The harm to the character and appearance of the locality that would be caused by the proposed development is sufficient to rebut the presumption contained in Policy GP13.’

The D&PA also raised concerns about whether the site would be resilient to flooding.