Rejection for demolition, rebuild of house plans
PLANS to demolish a two-storey house in Fosse Andre, St Peter Port, and build a three-storey one in its place have been rejected by planners.
The Development & Planning Authority said the proposed development would overlook a neighbour’s garden and leave it in shadow.
Fosse House, a traditional building with pitched roof and dormers, is believed to date from before 1900. However, it is not listed as a protected building.
It has been extended previously and is currently three flats.
Under the plans, it would have been demolished and replaced with a three-storey, hipped-roofed property, with a two-storey extension at the rear.
The building would have contained two one-bedroom flats and one two-bedroom flat.
The detached, two-storey dwelling at the rear of the site would have included two bedrooms.
The applicant claimed it was not viable to upgrade the existing property given its condition and the expense of building control requirements and that it would be more cost effective to demolish and rebuild.
There were seven letters of objection. They raised concerns about the loss of an old Guernsey house, the loss of green space, over-development of the site, and the loss of sunlight and privacy for neighbours.
The DPA felt the plans made effective use of the land and would not cause unacceptable loss of green space as the site was in an urban setting.
However, it was concerned about the impact on neighbouring residential properties to the south-west, west, north and east of the site.
It believed a two-storey house in the garden would overshadow a neighbour’s outdoor space.
The overall height of the main building would not have exceeded the existing property, but the eaves level would have increased to allow accommodation on the third floor.
After considering all these matters, the DPA rejected the scheme because its height, bulk and relationship with the existing adjoining dwelling would have caused unacceptable overshadowing and loss of sunlight to the garden area to the south of the adjoining dwelling.
It stated that would be detrimental to the residential amenities enjoyed by the occupiers.
