Planners reject homes plan after site cleared
A CLEARED St Peter Port site has had an application for permission for three new homes rejected, as planners have raised concerns about developers clearing important woodland in an apparent bid to avoid biodiversity protections.
The application from Mike and Caroline Allisette was for land behind Les Amballes Lodge, off Les Amballes.
The site comprises an area of undeveloped open land, which forms part of a larger woodland area along an escarpment, below Les Cotils and Beau Sejour.
The area is visible from various points along the seafront and Les Cotils.
It was proposed that a terrace of three, three-bedroom houses be built, with a vehicle access from a widened entrance to Les Amballes Lodge.
A previous application for a three-storey block with nine flats was rejected in 2018 for several reasons, including the fact the land formed an important feature within the Conservation Area.
In their considerations, the planners noted that the site was in the main centre – one of the areas where new housing should be directed – and was for three-bedroom properties – the type currently needed in the island.
But they had concerns about the plans.
It was noted that since the 2018 application was refused, the broadleaved woodland had been cleared.
‘No explanation is provided about the clearance works undertaken at the site and although on the face of it the site has a lower biodiversity value than it did in 2017, the devaluation of the site in terms of biodiversity due to its clearance should not be rewarded with a reduction in the levels of protection afforded to the site under Policy GP3,’ the planners noted in their report.
‘Otherwise this would encourage the clearance of similar sites prior to the submission of development proposals in order to enhance the prospects of development within Areas of Biodiversity Importance.
‘It is therefore considered that the site should remain to be viewed as having a relatively high biodiversity value within the urban setting, even if that biodiversity value is mainly based on its high potential.’
They noted that the newer scheme had a smaller footprint than the rejected scheme, but this was largely offset by creating a separate parking area.
They also highlighted that the biodiversity summary from the applicant about planting was vague, with no details of locations or quantity.
‘In addition, the biodiversity summary is based on the site being of low biodiversity value,’ the planners stated.
‘While the site may currently have little planting of biodiversity value, this is due to the clearance of the site since 2017 which has devalued the biodiversity value of the site... the site should be viewed as having a relatively high biodiversity value within the urban setting, even if that biodiversity value is mainly based on its high potential.’
Three letters of objection were sent to planners, noting about how traffic in the narrow roads had increased in recent decades and how a number of developments have taken place in the area. That included permission being granted to create four dwellings on the site of Kingston Cottage in 2020, and 14 flats and three dwellings at Upham’s Yard in 2017.
Environment Guernsey was consulted on the application and noted that the latest ecological assessment was the re-working of a 2017 document, but some inaccuracies introduced, stating there were species on the land which were in fact not found on Guernsey.
Guernsey Water noted that there was a sewer on the site, with one unit sitting directly over it.
The applicants declined to comment on the decision.
