Guernsey Press

Proposals for three homes in Lower Vauvert are rejected

PROPOSALS for three homes on a Town car park have been rejected due to poor design, which planners decided would have been 'overbearing'.

Published
Back Street, Lower Vauvert. (Picture by Luke Le Prevost, 31412689)

The application was made by Hawthorn Ltd for a car park to the south of Back Street, Lower Vauvert.

The dwellings would have been two-and-a-half storeys high, with carports on the ground floor, and two-bedroom homes above.

The site is surrounded by residential homes, with a narrow street.

It is within the St Peter Port main centre boundary, which is where new housing should be directed.

But the planners had a number of concerns.

‘There must be a balance between the most effective and efficient use of land and the requirement to ensure that proposed living and working conditions are acceptable, and that the higher density main centres, in particular, remain attractive places to live and work,’ they wrote in the planning report.

The planners looked at a variety of aspects, including access to daylight and open space, and privacy, which particularly caused concerns.

‘By virtue of the restricted size and depth of the site and its relationship with adjoining properties, the proposed development, due to its height and relationship with the adjoining buildings, would result in an overbearing form of development,’ the planners wrote.

‘Its proximity to and relationship with the adjoining properties would result in mutual overlooking and consequent loss of privacy to both the occupiers of the three dwellings proposed and the occupiers of properties in Contree Mansell detrimental to the amenities that can reasonably be expected to be enjoyed by the occupiers thereof.’

The site is almost completely surrounded on all sides by protected buildings.

‘The proposed development is not in sympathy with its setting and does not achieve a sufficiently high standard of design to complement the architectural character of the area,’ the planners wrote.

There was also concern about the design and about the sustainability of the design.

For these reasons the planners rejected the scheme.