HAPPY Landings is past the point of no return. If a CI Investments representation to see it rezoned were successful, it could be moved out of the tourist industry.

Even if that were refused, the Island Development Committee believed the draft Rural Area Plan offered scope for redevelopment.

Advocate Roger Perrot, representing the company which is linked to CI Traders, said that what applied to the specific La Villiaze zoning could also apply to the former hotel.

‘This building is manifestly way past the point of no return as far as its former use as a hotel,’ he said at yesterday’s session of the planning inquiry.

‘Were a hotel appropriate, the present building would have to be knocked down and replaced.’

The zoning given to La Villiaze was the result of a specific States directive. The rest of the plan has adopted a policy-based approach.

The directive gives the opportunity for manufacturing, research and development and e-business.

Even if the change of zoning was approved, any change of use for the Happy Landings would have to be ratified by the Tourist Board.

‘This is a situation where the accommodation is so below the standard that I would not anticipate a practical problem in that respect – there may be a theoretical problem,’ said Advocate Perrot.

He added that ‘if we were being brutally honest’, the site was not being used as a hotel and he was arguing for an open planning chequebook.

‘There is some potential to move away from what it is,’ said Advocate Perrot.

‘We’re stuck in a planning auspice; something needs to be done to free it up.’

IDC representative Damon Hackley said that La Villiaze’s designation was very much an exception.

‘I think the plan offers quite a deal of flexibility, subject to a variety of detailed issues being resolved.’

The IDC would consult the Tourist Board over the issue of core bed stock and whether a change of use could be granted.

He suggested a route through the plan that could see the building converted if the Tourist Board permitted it.

He confirmed that the site could be considered under a policy for airport-related development.

Policies also do not preclude the site being considered for retail use or indoor recreation.

‘And, indeed, that development might strengthen the role of the rural centre,’ he said.

‘I believe the plan does offer considerable scope to reuse the building or develop the site.’

The IDC did not support a specific zoning.

Advocate Perrot said that often when he appeared before the inquiry the IDC appeared to be entirely reasonable and liberal.

‘The difference is what is said in the inquiry and the very strict interpretation placed on these policies when the plan is enforced.’

He stood by the zoning change, but described the IDC’s response as ‘beguiling’.

‘I’m very pleased to hear what Mr Hackley said; it’s good to have and great this is on record so I might be able to use it against him in the near future.’