Jonathan Renouf

It may not be fashionable, but I want to say a few words in defence of the Bridging Island Plan – the principle document setting out planning policies for Jersey – and to make a case for finding some common ground in the planning battlefield.

Following the rejection of the planning application by Strive for a 6 storey hotel by the airport, there have been a series of assaults on the Island Plan as “not fit for purpose” and anti business. According to the Chamber of Commerce, the Plan is out of date and it is blocking vital investment in modern hotel accommodation. I don’t agree.

If you follow the logic of this argument then whenever a private investor comes calling with a major development, planning decision makers would be required to bow down and acquiesce, regardless of the implications for the landscape and the environment. However, presumably we can all accept that there would come a point at which a hotel would be too big, no matter how good it would be for the visitor economy. Would 8 storeys have been acceptable? 10 storeys?

The Island Plan encourages and supports development in the visitor economy (as shown by the approval of the Millbrook House development). But the planning system has to draw a line somewhere.

The Strive application was for a 22m high building – effectively 7 storeys given that one of the 6 storeys was double height. That is taller than Corbiere lighthouse. It is in a location where it would be visible from miles around. There is nothing remotely on that scale in the west of the island. (Despite its huge impact on the landscape, no distant views were included in the planning application.) The arguments made by the applicant were an attempt to use a general argument about economic benefit to swat every objection aside. I’m not against a hotel on the Strive site. But not at any price.

In particular, I don’t accept the argument that the hotel has to be at this scale to be viable. There have been no figures or evidence produced to justify the argument that only a 179 bed hotel (or bigger) would be viable. All we have is a bald statement that we are supposed to accept entirely at face value. Basic internet research suggests that smaller airport hotels can be viable. So with such a “Plan busting” application, the economic justification needs to be much more developed than has so far been the case.

We all want to see investment in new visitor accommodation and a rejuvenation of Jersey’s tourist “offer”. But are we really saying that the only way to do that is to cause significant harm to the landscape – to the very environment which is supposed to be part of our attraction? The planning inspector’s report into a recent Nude Dunes application made a key point: a development “that detracts from the appeal of its location cannot be considered a positive contribution”.

It is interesting to reflect on a thought provoking interview from two years ago with the property developer Zach Lewy. I don’t know if he had a hand in the Strive development, but he certainly commented on the potential value of developing an airport hotel with associated facilities. And he made a compelling case. But in a separate interview, he also talked about the need for a shared vision built up with stakeholder engagement. I’m not sure we have that shared vision yet. And he also talked about avoiding “incrementalism”. Maybe some of that thinking lay behind this application, which would have completely reset the planning context for the island. A lot would have ridden in on its coat tails, and maybe that was the point.

At the moment, it feels like the supporters of Strive just want to bludgeon the Island Plan out of the way. It would be helpful in building a shared vision if they acknowledged and engaged positively with the issues around visual impact, rather than denigrating an Island Plan that will always have to balance the competing desire to protect the island from overbearing development with the need to promote economic development. Common ground is possible and I’m keen to find it, but there has to be an acknowledgment that protecting the island’s landscape character is a legitimate policy aim.