44 new homes are due to be developed in the Parish of St Brelade following a decision today by the Planning Applications Panel.
The Housing Department submitted new plans for the Belle Vue site, at Les Quennevais. These consist of a development of nine three-bedroom houses and 35 two-bedroom affordable housing apartments, including some that are wheelchair accessible.
The development includes an underground car park, communal play space, and a route for the cycle track extension through to Les Quennevais playing fields.
At today’s Planning Applications Panel, members asked for more detail about the design of the scheme, which is a contemporary development in keeping with 1930s-style buildings in the area.
After receiving more information from the architect, the panel approved the plans unanimously, subject to three extra conditions relating to design detail and colour, sustainable energy and further landscaping.
Development on the first phase of the scheme, which consists of 35 affordable homes, has already started.
Planning Director, Peter Le Gresley said: “This is an high quality, modern housing scheme with a mix of houses and affordable apartments that will benefit the whole community. The design concept is a really exciting addition to the Les Quennevais area and we look forward to working with the architects to resolve the final details.”
Also at today’s meeting, plans to demolish an agricultural shed on Le Mont L’Evesque, St Lawrence and build three homes on the site were again turned down by the panel.
The applicant had requested reconsideration of the department’s earlier decision to refuse the scheme. But panel members agreed that the plans went against a number of key Island Plan policies, including not building in the Green Zone without an exceptional reason, and the Protection of Employment Land.
This last policy is designed to protect existing commercial sites to support enterprise in Jersey. For example, agricultural sheds can’t be redeveloped unless the building stays in commercial use. The panel didn’t think the applicant had shown there was no longer an agricultural need for the shed.