Portelet Bay Management Limited, which represents some of the owners of the 46 apartments and seven houses on the headland above Portelet Bay, have written a letter in support of the appeal submitted by Marcus Kraig Stone, who has frequently voiced his objection to the scheme for Portelet Bay Café.
The group have asked that if Mr Stone’s appeal, which will be heard on 13 October, is thrown out that they are given the power to continue the appeal under their own name.
The group’s appeal letter, which was written by Peter Southall on behalf of the group, has been submitted after the deadline which states that any appeal has to be lodged within 28 days of planning permission being granted, which was given on 24 June.
However, Mr Stone’s appeal was lodged on time and shortly after the Planning Committee voted 3-2 in favour of the application, and followed representations from the proprietors of the business who said that the back of their premises had repeatedly collapsed since they bought the site in 2014.
His reasons for objection related to the impact of the changes, such as the effect on parking in the area and the surrounding environment which sits on Coastal National Park land where there is a presumption against any development.
In their letter, PBML wrote: ‘Although we believe that Advocate Marcus Stone has locus standi [the right or capacity to bring an action or to appear in a court], we kindly ask the Planning Tribunal to still hear the appeal if it reaches the decision that Advocate Stone does not have locus standi. This would enable us to make representations and attend the appeal.
‘We have read the appellant’s statement of case and, in the main, we support his submissions.’
PBML say that the café’s planning application would turn the business into a ‘large restaurant with a large footprint’.
They continued: ‘This commercial operation and use of land would be significantly intensified by the doubling of dining capacity, causing noise and disturbance to PBML, its shareholders and residents.’
The group believe that the café and the Planning Department have not given ‘justification’ for departing from the Island Plan.
They said: ‘There is no reason or motive to extend the existing café to a substantial restaurant given the natural restrictions imposed by geographical location.
‘The increased flow of patrons of the café, the transport by land and sea and the increase in the size of the building will inevitably harm the landscape character.’
They added: ‘PBML is not opposed to the stabilisation works in principle, with appropriate and prudent conditions, together with a suitably worded planning obligation agreement. However, it cannot support the building of the rooftop terrace for the reasons developed by Advocate Stone and covered in our representations.’
