TENSIONS around development above Portelet Bay have flared once again as Islanders await the outcome of a planning application for a four-bedroom house on the cliff-side.
MS Planning Ltd, on behalf of Peter Lewis, has submitted proposals to demolish an existing 1970s bungalow called St Albans and replace it with a home – which would be almost twice the size of the existing property – with an infinity pool, paved terraces and ponds.
An architect, nearby businesses and residents have said the plans risk setting a “damaging precedent” for development in sensitive coastal areas.
However, around half of the comments – including those from the neighbouring property – supported the proposals, claiming the site was in “urgent need of development”.
Another in “strong support” said the development was not out of character with surrounding houses.
Work was already approved and under way to extend and refurbish the 234sq-m bungalow – but the owners are looking to forego earlier approval for a 425sq-m five-bedroom house and instead opt for a smaller but new-built, sustainable home of 410 sq m.
The application, which closed to public comments on 30 April, is pending.
The whole of the site is within the designated Protected Coastal Area and the southern section is also within Coastal National Park land.
It is therefore subject to policy NE3 of the Bridging Island Plan, which requires developments within the Protected Coastal Area to protect and enhance the landscape and seascape character.
The site also sits within the Portelet-Noirmont Environmentally Sensitive Area.
It is the latest bid to transform the site, after DT Holdings (Jersey) Ltd submitted ambitious plans for a seven-bedroom house, indoor swimming pool with a steam room and sauna, cinema and wine cellar.
But the plans were withdrawn following criticism from nearby residents and the National Trust for Jersey, which argued that the proposed building would be contrary to both the Island Plan and planning laws.
The application stated: “Whilst the site is in an elevated position above Portelet Bay, the steepness of the escarpment and mature trees make it highly screened from public views.
“It represents a proportionate and sympathetic approach to providing a replacement dwelling, with environmental gains and habitat creation at the core of the scheme compared to the larger previously approved development subject of an extant permission.
“The careful design of the proposal will ensure that no unreasonable impact is caused to the amenities of the site’s immediate neighbours, on the character of the area, or Coastal National Park to the south of the site.”
Penelope Best, who wrote to the JEP about the planning application, raised several concerns and said it was near woodland which was “savagely cut back” in 2022.
She said: “I believe this scheme, for this particular site towards a cliff edge over a public beach, needs careful attention. While it can be considered a private concern, its impact could be very public.
“Excavations would cause vibrations, alterations to topography and no doubt other changes to the environment.
“Seascape, the view of things from the sea, is as important as that from the land. This scheme should be assessed from the sea. It cannot now be screened by woodland.
“Having seen the damage caused by insensitive developments, many countries are now taking measures to ensure their beautiful places – the reasons why people visit them and want to live there – stay that way.”
She said she hoped the Planning Department would “tread carefully”.
The application attracted 18 public comments, including from Socrates Architects and the Portelet Bay Café.
Socrates were “compelled to express an expansive objection”, saying the development presents “multiple and significant concerns” in relation to the Bridging Island Plan and “violates” Policy NE3.
It said: “The development threatens to undermine decades of conservation efforts aimed at preserving Jersey’s unique coastal heritage.”
Referring to the Portelet Bay gated development, it said: “It is crucial to recognise that the existence of a prior planning mistake should not serve as a precedent for further intrusive development.”
It said that allowing the development – which would excavate some of the granite headland – would set a “damaging precedent”.
Concluding, it said the scheme “represents not merely a potential infrastructural change but a significant threat to the very ethos and integrity of Jersey’s cherished coastal landscape”.
The Portelet Bay Café said they were not in “total opposition” to development on the site, but that the plans were “disproportionate” and “cause concern for the area, in particular the destabilisation of the granite head beneath the site”.
They asked for developers to consider an “appropriate, less intrusive scheme which will protect the coastline and limit unnecessary further destabilisation”.
One public comment complained that the advertisement for the planning proposals was within the gated community and therefore did not make the general public aware of them.
The JEP attempted to make contact with James Naish Architects and Mr Lewis.
