Plans for 18 flats and an office at Glategny Esplanade rejected
Plans for 18 apartments and a commercial unit on Guernsey’s eastern seafront have been rejected by planners, who said it would overdevelop the site and the design was poor.
The application to demolish 15 and 16, Glategny Esplanade was made by Westland Holdings.
The project would have seen an office on the ground floor of the new structure on the seafront, with four storeys of flats above it.
There would be a gap in the middle of the site for parking and a courtyard.
At the back of the site would be a seven-storey structure, containing flats.
The planners received 25 letters from members of the public in objection.
They were concerned about the scale of the project – one person said that seven storeys was ridiculous, as it would make it higher than any property around.
One of the properties has a blue plaque, highlighting the existence of the building on the Duke of Richmond Map, which was drawn up more than 200 years ago. However the building is not listed.
The States’ archaeologist noted that the site lies halfway between the former Royal Hotel and the Savoy Hotel sites, which were both excavated about 20 years ago. The digs revealed important archaeological remains, including a very early neolithic settlement, as well as prehistoric and Roman features.
He noted that as both properties were shown on the 1843 Town map, they were unlikely to have significant foundations.
‘There is thus a strong likelihood of good archaeological preservation in this area.’
He requested that if the project went ahead, an archaeological excavation should take place after the buildings were demolished.
However, it looks unlikely the project will go ahead at this stage.
Planners had concerns and said the proposed development represented over-development of the site.
‘It does not respect the character of the local built environment and does not achieve a sufficiently high standard of design within the Conservation Area,’ they said in the planning report.
‘Due to the size, scale, height and bulk of Blocks A and B the development would appear obtrusive and incongruous, being architecturally unrelated to the size and scale of surrounding development. This would also result in a development that would have an overbearing impact on the occupiers of adjoining buildings.’
They felt that some of the flats would get little daylight and have a poor outlook.
Based on this, along with other reasons, the plans were rejected.
