Apartment plan for St Brelade hotel refused

PLANS to demolish a 1960s’ hotel overlooking St Brelade’s Bay and replace it with 12 apartments have been refused following a Planning committee meeting.

Hotel Miramar (29174568)
Hotel Miramar (29174568)

Simon White, from LMGD Ltd, had applied to knock down Hotel Miramar, with a statement accompanying the application saying the building was in ‘poor condition’ and unsuitable for refurbishment.

However, the planning committee was unable to come to a decision on the site, with three members voting in favour and three against. Under Planning committee rules, in circumstances where there is an even split in votes, the application is automatically refused.

During the meeting, the committee heard from Nia Ridgard, a neighbour to the north of the site, who was concerned that residents in the new development would be able to see into her house.

‘My main concern is privacy. This is going to be looking straight into my daughter’s bedroom and the garden.

‘I know that they have recognised this issue and made changes to the windows in the plans but I do not feel that this is enough and I would like extra conditions to be put in place,’ she said.

Meanwhile Moz Scott, president of the St Brelade’s Bay Association, said her organisation did not like the shape of the proposed building.

‘You can go down to the bay now and see lots of blockish buildings and that is interfering with the natural contours of the bay.’

But Michael Stein, of MS Planning, said the new development would have the same level of visibility as the existing hotel and would therefore be hidden from most areas.

‘Because of the site position, at the head of a narrow valley, and because of the green backdrop of mature trees that it sits within, the existing hotel is not readily visible on the skyline and nor does it obscure strategic views or existing vistas,’ he said. ‘Indeed, it is only visible from very limited vantage points at the eastern end of St Brelade’s Bay and only on positions on the beach when the tide is out.’

Constable Deirdre Mezbourian and Deputies Scott Wickenden and Graham Truscott voted in favour of the development, saying that they thought it would have little impact on the surrounding environment.

However, Constable Philip Le Sueur and Deputies Kirsten Morel and Jeremy Maçon all voted against the development, raising concerns over the suitability of the design.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.

Top Stories

More From The Jersey Evening Post

UK & International News