POLITICIANS will decide on Thursday if more than 130 flats will be built on South Hill, a 50-bed care home at Fauvic should go ahead and whether a large mound of toxic ash at La Collette should be allowed to get bigger.
The Planning Committee – a group of States Members who determine larger and more controversial applications – will gather for its monthly meeting with a busy agenda.
They will consider an application from the government to build a headland at the south-western end of the La Collette reclamation site, made up of lined pits of contaminated soil covered with inert building waste.
Part of the application, which was first submitted in 2016, is retrospective, meaning that sections of the mounds have already been built.
All applications come to the committee with a recommendation from the Planning Department on whether approval should be granted.
The planning officer assigned to this case suggests that the States Members should approve the La Collette plans.
Other applications due to be assessed include the demolition and redevelopment of the old government offices on South Hill.
The Jersey Development Company, a taxpayer-owned firm, wants to build 64 one-bedroom, 69 two-bedroom and six three-bedroom apartments on the site.
Last May, the Planning Committee rejected the JDC’s first attempt to build there after concluding that the rear section of the development, closest to a former quarry, was too high and obtrusive.
The new plans have a lower profile and have been recommended for approval.
Two applications for work at Fauvic Nurseries will also be considered.
An application to build a 50-bed care home and fundraising shop for Jersey Hospice on redundant greenhouses has been recommended for refusal, while a proposal to upgrade other greenhouses for the cultivation of medicinal cannabis on another part of the site has been recommended for approval.
An application to build a four-bedroom house and a swimming pool on undeveloped land immediately west of L’Horizon Hotel in St Brelade’s Bay has also been recommended for approval.
Planning permission to build on the site has previously been granted three times; however, the most recent application was rejected last June.
The applicants have since revised the design, reducing its size and scale. Several neighbours have raised concerns about overlooking and the loss of privacy; but the Planning Department has said it is satisfied that the development would not result in ‘unreasonable harm’.
