An application seeking permission for a series of retrospective amendments made to an “unsightly” property overlooking the Royal Jersey Golf Course has drawn stinging criticism from Grouville residents.
Parishioners have taken architectural firm Riva Architects to task for building the house several feet higher than the height agreed in the original planning application from December 2023.
In a design statement, the firm listed seven “retrospective proposals” for the ongoing project at Daisy Bank, Le Chemin au Grèves in Grouville – which has involved the construction of a two-storey residential unit that stands behind the first tee.
“The complexities involved in the procurement of a viable building contract to deliver the project have unfortunately brought about the retrospective nature of this application”, the firm explained.
The retrospective proposals include an increase in roof height for the two-floor part of the house, in part due to the installation of an “internal lift” within the living areas to meet “Lifetime Home requirements”.
Also stated to have contributed to the height increase is a “parapet design” to conceal several “photovoltaic panels” from public view.
A further retrospective request has also been submitted for the “roof parapet” over the single-storey living area to be increased in order to accommodate an “intensive green roof with indigenous planting”.
Riva Architects noted in the design statement that while the “heights have indeed had to be adjusted to meet technical demands”, the “basic massing to the development remains unaltered”.
But the retrospective planning application has already attracted 15 public comments from Islanders anxious to make their disapproval heard.
“Rules have been broken,” Islander Mary Ann Gray wrote. “There must be consequences.
“Allowing one to get away with it opens the floodgates for all and sundry. Retrospective permission for something so outrageous and/or a fine is not the answer.”
Echoing Ms Gray, resident Caroline Anderson stated: “Retrospective planning applications should be the exception but they appear to be becoming the norm.
“Build it first and then seek permission. This is wrong and the system needs to change reflect it.”
“Semantics aside”, she continued, “I object to any increase in height being granted. It is too tall already!”.
Virigina Roffe, who described the house as “in its design, overbearing and out of keeping with its surroundings”, argued that “any additional height” would serve to exaggerate “its negative impact on the surrounding coastal environment”.
“I would ask”, she added, “that for the reasons of impact on its coastal environment, retrospective permission is refused”.
Concerned resident Andy Brown simply asked: “The height of the current construction is above the agreed height per planning application. How?”
In the original planning application from December 2023, the decision to build the development was said to have “taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island plan”, and a full survey report from Sangan Island Conservation was commissioned.
“Notably”, the document stated, “the relationship with neighbours has been specifically considered in relation to the potential overlooking and other neighbour impact”.
In a public comment published on 21 September, Islander Mary Young suggested that the retrospective proposals tabled by Riva Architects had not been subject to an environmental impact assessment.
“Whilst planning parameters have changed over the years and these have affected the height permissions, the sensitive nature of a site should still be what guides the planners, and the Planning Committee in their decision making”, Ms Young added.
“They certainly should not allow those permissions that are grated to be flouted without consequence.”
David Minty wrote in his public comment: “I am a regular user of this area of Jersey’s fabulous historic coastline, [there is] nothing more iconic that this stretch of the Royal Bay of Grouville.
He added: “I am led to understand that the developers of this property have constructed this building HIGHER than the permission that was granted.
“[I] would respectfully request that the matter be remediated, as they are trying to exploit your lack of enforcement appetite and capability.”
