Kings development would be a horror story

My first point is that there was little prior notice of the appeal hearing. The original planning application was well supported by the public, both people living in the area, some of whom had formerly objected to the development, and interested parties. I believe because of the lack of notice, few members of the public attended the appeal.

While realising that the panel adjudicating the appeal could only 'hear' arguments and see documentation that was presented at the original application, the lack of any expansion as to the reasons behind the rejection was lamentable.

The Environment Department's employees had been in favour of the development. The political body had, quite rightly, in my opinion, rejected the application. As 'servants' of the political body, one would have expected that our servants prepare arguments in support of the rejection. Of course, this was too simplistic and no preparation for this meeting had been done. It was left to the chairman of the adjudicators to point out that they were in a 'difficult position'. No, they weren't. Their duty was to advise and support the politicians who had voted in accordance with their mandate from the people of Guernsey – that's us, incidentally. That's what democracy is all about. Instead of standing by their opinion, they should have had another look at the plans, visualised the blot on the landscape this building would become and look at the negative effect the development would have on the community.

The building had been designed, we were told, to blend sympathetically with the other buildings in the area. The fact is that the buildings in King's Road are large Victorian-style houses, tall windows, which used to have integral shutters. Elegant, single family homes. There is a small clos opposite the proposed entrance. This clos has more modern lower houses, but is 'off road'. The houses in Belmont Road are not as stately, but still designed to be single occupancy. Again, the houses around the bend in the road in the Croutes, single occupancy. The multi-tenanted block, regardless of any 'sympathetic' design feature, will stick out like a sore thumb. Deputy Domaille's only negative objection was that it would look like a 'blob'. A blot on the landscape?

The new build, as it would be built on the top of a hill with the ground sloping down into a valley, would seem to be on a level of St Joseph's Church and would be able to be seen quite clearly. I believe it would change the skyline. They'd have good views, but what of our view of them?

The proposed new entry/egress to this comparatively massive proposed building is on a main arterial road, almost opposite the entrance to a clos, and to the right-hand side it branches into another frequently used road, Rue a L'Or. Just round the corner is Belmont Road – pavement, what pavement? We are told with great authority that the new development, at peak times, would add only two vehicle movements. Come on now. Green and cabbage-like come to mind. Whoever did that bit of research needs to go back to school.

The proposed flats are one, two, three and four bedrooms, the two-, three- and four bedroom flats would probably house families. Families have children who go to school. The pricing of the proposed flats would probably mean large cars, all of which would be used for the 'school run'. The area presently is not safe enough for the children to walk to school. It would be no safer with the added traffic.

Then you come to loss of amenity for the neighbours of the proposed building. The worst-hit would be Belvoir. Belvoir is a low house, the new flats would tower over the house and garden. Whereas currently the house is quite private with a large, sunny garden, it would lose any thought of privacy. The loss of the large leylandii would be a good thing, however, they would be replaced by windows and terraces. Instead of tennis players shouting 'love 30' and the pleasant noise of tennis balls being hit, there would be people enjoying the sun and the smell of barbecues on the terraces, all accompanied no doubt with the owners' choice of music. Hardly a fair swap.

The proposed new entry is shown to be dropped down to the level of the road outside Belvoir. So instead of a back garden gate, there would be a drop down to a busy road. Instead of being able to carry shopping in through the back door on a fairly level line, the owners would have to climb the new hill to the back gate or the old entrance from their garage through the front garden.

The act of excavation of the site, should it be approved, would cause enormous disruption in the area. Noise, dust and dirt could be the least of Belvoir's worries. There is a granite garden wall around the garden, which would need to be underpinned along its entire length. The house sits some 6-8ft away from the wall. I have no knowledge of the age of the house, however, would assume it is post war and the foundations would no longer come close to modern specifications. Would the foundations of the house withstand the use of heavy machinery? What happens if cracks start appearing in the walls?

Not only will this development destroy the peace, it would also make Belvoir unsaleable. As your home is probably your largest investment, the destruction in value cannot be justified. This would be a horror story for any family.

ROSIE HENDERSON,

Ma Carriere,

Le Petit Bouet,

St Peter Port,

GY1 2AN.