St Brelade’s Bay development plans rejected

Although Planning officers recommended approval and the department’s historic buildings expert, Tracey Ingle, spoke in favour, the Planning Committee unanimously decided to adhere to the policies in the Island Plan, which sets Jersey’s planning policy.

The committee members, Trinity Constable Philip Le Sueur and Deputies Russell Labey, Scott Wickenden and Jeremy Maçon, were concerned about the overall scale of the proposed buildings, and the impact the development would have on the bay, neighbouring properties and an 18th century Conway Tower at its core.

‘As far as the Island Plan is concerned, I feel that the development is so in conflict with the shoreline policy as to rule it out,’ Deputy Labey said.

It took almost three hours for the application from Conway Towers Properties Ltd to be heard as in addition to presentations from Planning and the applicant, 11 residents of St Brelade’s Bay spoke against the plans with another two in favour.

The developer wanted to build two five-bedroom luxury properties, each with separate one-bedroom units of staff accommodation, and two flats – one and two bedroom respectively – on the site between Mont Sohier and the beach-front promenade around the Conway Tower to the east of Hotel L’Horizon.

The proposals also included redeveloping the current Wayside Café, with a three-bedroom apartment above it, renovate Jono’s Watersports surf shop and to demolish an adjacent warehouse, a line of single-car garages, beach ‘shack’ style properties on the seafront and Sea Breeze, a property on Mont Sohier.

The developer was also applying to alter vehicular access onto the main road, construct a new bus shelter, restore parts of the site to natural duneland to provide habitats for wildlife and create public access through the site.

If approved the Conway Tower would have be turned into self-catering accommodation.

The objections included concerns about the size of the proposed development, loss of parking, departing from accepted planning policies and Planning’s failure to protect the bay from inappropriate developments.

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –