Planners back Nelson House scheme – board rules today
Tuesday 24th May 2011, 2:29PM BST.
PROPOSALS to completely redevelop Nelson Place and raise its roof height have been backed by planners.
The application to turn the former Smith Street Post Office building into a shop will be discussed at an open planning meeting today, at which the Environment Department board will decide whether to approve it.
The original plan to build a three-storey structure was rejected, partly because it would block the views out to Herm from Ann’s Place and the War Memorial.
Developer Ossory Investments Ltd then submitted a revised application for the building which had just two storeys and reduced the overall height by about 3.5 metres. The planning report said that meant most of the views from Ann’s Place and the War Memorial would be retained.
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. See below for subscription details. Individual editions are also available.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
And that my friends is how we the Guernsey States intend to preserve our Island
The people spoke out when first this was mentioned.
But oh no, The States go their own way and never intend to listen.
Well soon all Guernsey people will get a chance to elect a States who WILL listen.
You States had a sacred Job to up hold Island ways, but you sold out.
Report abuse
Shame, I would have thought that there was some room for movement to protect the building and existing roof height.
It is not like there is a certainty that who ever this construction is being done for will actually still be in it in 25 years tims, yet this will have a lasting impact changing the roof height.
Report abuse
Another landmark building going, part of our memory erased. Why can the States not say “do what you want inside but keep the roof hight and the facade” as they are? I don’t remember the ceilings as being low at all, is there really any problem? I feel like finding out where the swines who are doing this come from and taking a wreckers ball to buildings they grew up with. Perhaps they wouldn’t care. And all for what, another damn clothes shop with no architectural merit whatsoever? We should all vow to boycott it if they ruin this building.
Report abuse
Having now read the full application, it appears some of my comments are a bit misplaced. It appears that although part of the facade is being demolished, it will be rebuilt to match existing. Therefore my main problem with this is the raising of the roofline by ‘only’ 2 metres which the planning dept. appears to be happy with despite it contravening their own guidelines and ruining part of the view. Do you think Environment would nod it through if I wanted to raise my roofline by six or seven feet, even though it wouldn’t interfere with many peoples’ view?
Report abuse
Beanjar
I think they made a huge fuss over the Bougourd’s raising their St Andrews bungalow roof height by a few inches … but there again,the sin was not to ask permission first
Report abuse
Beanjar!
That old saying is becoming clear as days roll by
One law for rich, and to Hell with the Poor.
If the new owners want business in Guernsey… then listen to your future customers, or have no customer at all.
I still maintain they’re planning living quarter up top.. will the owners Deny this
If not why an extra flooring?
Report abuse
I find this whole matter extremely confusing. There is a development in the Canichers which when finished will totally block a similar view for a number of houses on the “wrong” side of the road. I know for a fact that objections were raised by everyone of these homes that were losing their view and that these objections were of no cause to stop the proposed development. Yet here we have an example of plans being rejected because of a loss of view. Why the change in rules?
Report abuse