Select a region
Plans to build more than 150 homes on the site of the old Planning offices have been rejected over concerns about the scale of the development.
The States of Jersey Development Company’s vision comprised of 153 homes in total: 70 one-bed, 56 two-bed and 27 three-bed apartments with a courtyard garden, basement car parking and cycle storage.
Accommodating those homes would have been a curved terraced nine-storey block at the rear of the site, to the east, a six-storey to the north-west, and a five-storey building to the south-west.
Pictured: An aerial impression of the proposed development, which shows the larger curved block at the rear and two front 'pavilions'.
But the application was thrown out by the Planning Committee this morning over concerns about the scale and massing of the development, and the potential impact on the horizon and public views.
“I’ve seen all the detailed paperwork but you can’t disguise the fact that the applicant is looking for too much here," Committee member Deputy Steve Luce said.
Chair of the Committee, Constable Philip Le Sueur, added: “The scale and mass is way way too far, and I don’t like single aspect flats looking at quarry face. Also, where is the school where the children living her will go to?"
Pictured: The expected view from the glacis field leading down from Fort Regent.
Despite being recommended for approval by the Planning Department, members of the Planning Committee voted four to one against the plans.
Deputy Mary Le Hegarat was the only one to support the proposal.
Rejecting the plans, the Committee tasked the States of Jersey Development Company with making tweaks and returning with a scaled down design.
Pictured: A birds-eye view of the area earmarked for development.
Follow Express for updates...
Plans go in for 153 apartments and redesigned park on South Hill
Major plans for 150 apartments on South Hill unveiled
Bid for more affordable homes at Waterfront and South Hill fails
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.