On Jan 3/06 a majority of St. John's City Council voted -- against the advice of city staff -- to approve in principle a U.S. developer's proposal to replace the existing hotel with the large building in the sketch. At least, it may be the building in the sketch. It's hard to know for sure, because as far as is publically known the U.S.-based developer has submitted the sketch above, but no site plan or details as requested by the City Planning Dept.
The Evening Telegram reported that the proposed 200-suite 10-storey building would replace the existing 6-storey hotel, cover 78 percent of the 4.5 acre site, and that :
"The approval will mean the project will not be subject to the Battery Guidelines approved by the city in June... 'We're removing the Battery Hotel from the Battery Guidelines Study. We're allowing the development to proceed...' (Mayor) Wells said."

In a December 28/05 memo to councillors prior to the Jan 6/06 meeting, the Director of City Planning expressed concern that the proposed development would compete on the skyline with Signal Hill and Cabot Tower identified as the most prominent landmarks in the province. (They are what the Province's Dept of Tourism marketing strategy has identified as "icons.") The memo advised that the proposed development contravenes both the Battery (area) Development Guidelines accepted by the city last June, as well as the Municipal Plan, and states "It is the opinion of staff that a building of this magnitude could potentially conflict with the policies of the Municipal Plan for the Battery area and the recommendations of the Battery Development Guidelines Study. In order to ensure continuity with the objectives and policies of the City's Municipal Plan, it is recommended that the Battery Hotel site not be excluded from the Battery Development Guideline Study area."
The Planning Dept memo provides some very strong reasons for its advice. Read the Dec 28/05 Memo (PDF document)
The memo makes clear that city planning staff feels:
(1) a new hotel built on the site could be designed under the existing city guidelines, and
(2) the "ROCK" proposal does not comply with those guidelines; instead it seriously violates them
(3) the proposed development should not be given approval outside of those guidelines.
(4) the developer must submit a preliminary plan with some basic details "as is standard practice for new developments".

The proposed devoplement contravenes both the Battery Development Guidelines and the St. John's Municipal Plan. Despite this fact and the urging of their own planning staff, on Jan 3/06 Councillors voted to disregard professional advice and exempt the Battery site from the Battery Development Guidelines.

Battery/Signal Hill area property owners are required to comply with the Battery Development Guidelines to obtain approval for any development to their properties. These guidelines restrict the height and size of buildings, and preserve our views. They secure the value of residents' properties, provide a stable basis for development, and preserve the character of our historic neighbourhood. The City has required homeowners to comply with the guidelines for nearly 2 years.

We support the Battery Development Guidelines, and urge the mayor and councillors to abide by these regulations which they themselves approved. There cannot be one standard for U.S. developers, and a different one for Battery residents and property holders. If the Battery Development Guidelines can be thrown out for one development proposal, then they may be thrown out for others, and there is no protection for this historic area.

Write to City Council. On Jan 23/06 Councillors plan to vote on a motion to rewrite the text of the St. Johns Municipal Plan development regulations to also exempt the Battery site from the Municipal Plan's regulations. Citizens have until NOON, THURSDAY, January 19, 2006 to submit a letter to make their feelings known about this. There seem to be no plans for a public meeting. If you want City Council to know how you feel about this, you must write to the City Clerk (e-mail: pbartlett@stjohns.ca) by NOON, THURSDAY, January 19, 2006. Letters will be included in the agenda for the Regular Meeting of Council on January 23, 2006. To see the kind of letter you might like to write, click here (text) (RTF file) If you have missed the Jan 19th deadline for written submissions, email or telephone your Councillor now.

Phone or email the councillors and mayor. Click here for Councillors' contact numbers.

Sign the petition online here.

Read news stories about City Council's actions: Jan 4 (CBC) Telegram editorial Jan 18. Robert Mellin Letter in Jan 21 Telegram

Chronology of the Battery Development Guidelines:
June 29, 2004: City convened public meeting to discuss Guidelines.
August 23, 2004: Council accepted recommendation from Housing & Planning Committee that all applications for Battery area development be held to the Battery Development Guidelines until final decision is made. The ordinary homeowner was made to comply with the guidelines
July 12, 2005: Council accepted recommendation from Housing & planning Committee that Council approve the Battery Guidelines Study and that staff undertake amendment to the Municipal Plan Regulations.