states greffe minutes - government of jersey · 22nd meeting 26.01.17 323 the living legend, la rue...

321

KML/SC/051

PLANNING COMMITTEE

(22nd Meeting)

26th January 2017

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of

Trinity, Vice-Chairman and Deputies R.J. Rondel and S.M. Wickenden, both of

St. Helier.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary, Chairman

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St Saviour

(not present for item No. A14)

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade

(not present for item Nos. A7, A10 and A23)

Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier

In attendance -

P. Le Gresley, Director, Development Control

(item Nos. A1 – A13 only)

A. Townsend, Principal Planner


C. Jones, Senior Planner

J. Gladwin, Senior Planner

L. Davies, Planner

M. Jones, Planner

R. Hampson, Planner

R. Greig, Planner

S. de Gouveia, Trainee Planner

S.H. Chang, Trainee Planner

G. Duffell, Assistant Senior Planner

T. Ingle, Principal Historic Environment Officer

K. M. Larbalestier, Committee Clerk, States Greffe


K. Slack, Committee Clerk, States Greffe


Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.

Minutes. A1. The Minutes of the meeting held on 8th December 2016, having been

previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Decisions of

the former

Planning

Applications

Committee/

Planning

Committee

(2016): report

to States.

A2. The Committee considered a draft report, which had been prepared by the

Department for presentation to the States in accordance with Article 9(6) of the

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended. The report detailed the

following –

the number of applications determined by the Committee between January

and December 2016;

the number of appeals (under the new planning appeals system) against

decisions of the Committee, and,

322

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

410/99(1) policy issues raised by the Committee and the response of the Minister for the

Environment to the same.

The Committee accordingly approved the report, subject to the inclusion of a

recommendation regarding a review of the site notification process for planning

applications (Minute No. A16 of 8th December 2016 refers). The Committee agreed

that the final version of the report should be distributed electronically to members

and subsequently considered by the Minister for the purpose of presentation to the

States.

Sycamore

Farm, La Rue

du Saut

Falluet, St.

Peter:

proposed new

garage and

pool

house/alterat-

ions to

vehicular

access (RFR).

477/5/3(981)

P/2016/0671

A3. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A11 of 8th December 2016,

considered a report in connexion with an application which sought permission for

the construction of a garage and pool house to the west of Sycamore Farm, La Rue

du Saut Falluet, St. Peter. It was also proposed to alter the vehicular access on to La

Rue du Saut Falluet. The Committee had visited the application site on 6th

December 2016.

The Committee recalled that it had been minded to approve the above application,

contrary to the officer recommendation. For the purpose of formally setting out the

reasons for approval and the conditions which were to be attached to the permit, the

application was represented.

Having noted the reasons for approval and the conditions, as detailed within the

officer report, the Committee confirmed approval of the application subject to the

imposition of certain conditions.

Montana, La

Rue d’Egypte,

Trinity:

proposed

extensions.

477/5/2(748)

P/2016/0672


considered a report in connexion with an application which sought permission for

the construction of a 2 storey extension to the east elevation of the property known

as Montana, La Rue d’Egypte, Trinity. In addition, it was proposed to raise the roof

of the property to create a first floor and extend an existing single garage to create a

double garage and plant room. Various external alterations were also proposed. The

Committee had visited the application site on 6th December 2016.

The Committee recalled that it had been minded to approve the application, contrary

to the officer recommendation. For the purpose of formally setting out the reasons

for approval and the conditions which were to be attached to the permit, the

application was represented.

Having noted the reasons for approval and the conditions, as detailed within the

officer report, the Committee confirmed approval of the application subject to the

imposition of certain conditions.

La Fougere, Le

Mont de Rozel,

St. Martin:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

477/5/2(746)

P/2016/1230


considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the demolition

of the property known as La Fougere, Le Mont de Rozel, St. Martin and its

replacement with a new 2 bedroom dwelling. It also proposed to alter the vehicular

access on to Le Mont de Rozel and connect to the main foul sewer network. The

Committee had visited the site on 6th December 2016.

The Committee recalled that it had been minded to refuse the application, contrary

to the officer recommendation. For the purpose of formally setting out the reasons

for refusal the application was represented.

Having noted the reasons for refusal, as detailed within the officer report, the

Committee confirmed refusal of the application.

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

323

The Living

Legend, La

Rue du Petit

Aleval, St.

Peter:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

1070/2/1/3

(174)

P/2016/0712

A6. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A15 of 5th September 2012, of

the former Planning Applications Panel, as previously constituted, considered a

report in connexion with an application which proposed the demolition of various

structures at The Living Legend, La Rue du Petit Aleval, St. Peter and the

construction of 9 x 4 bedroom and 3 x 6 bedroom dwellings with associated car

parking and landscaping. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Green Zone and included a former German Command

Bunker, which was a Potential Listed structure. Policies SP1, 2, 3, 4, 7, NE1, 2, 4

and 7, E1, GD4, TT2, 8, 4, GD1 and 7, NR1, LWM2 and 3, NR7 and WM1 of the

2011 Island Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee recalled the planning history of the site, which included the grant of

in principle permission in 2012 for the conversion and part demolition of the existing

tourist attraction to create a 65 bedroom care home, one x 6 bedroom dwelling and

5 x 4 bedroom dwellings with associated car parking and landscaping. Since that

time the Department had provided pre-application advice in relation to (1) a scheme

which proposed the creation of a care home with sheltered accommodation and, (2)

a residential development.

The Committee recalled that whilst the application site was situated within the

designated Green Zone, exceptions were permissible, to include the redevelopment

of employment buildings, involving demolition and replacement for another use.

The current scheme sought permission for the redevelopment of the site to provide

12 new dwellings. The wholesale demolition of the existing built complex was

proposed, with the notable exception of the WWII bunker. The scheme complied

with Policy NE7, having proved the employment use to be redundant and also

delivering demonstrable environmental gain. The latter had been achieved by virtue

of a significant reduction in the visual mass, scale and volume of buildings in the

landscape; a reduction in the intensity of use, inclusive of trip generation; the

sustainable re-use of already developed land; and, a more sensitive and sympathetic

siting and design approach. Moreover, the proposed development responded

appropriately to its built and landscape context; addressed issues of highway safety;

helped to secure other sustainable modes of transport and paid appropriate regard to

neighbouring amenities and the significance of the natural and historic environment.

Consequently, the application was recommended for approval, subject to the

imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report. It was also being

recommended that the applicant enter into a suitable Planning Obligation

Agreement, pursuant to Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002

(as amended) to secure the delivery of –

the fitting of one rapid electric vehicle charging point for each of the 12 new

dwellings; and,

a contribution of £40,000 for cycle infrastructure improvements (figure

increased as per correspondence dated 23rd January 2016, from the

Department for Infrastructure).

On a related matter, it was noted that the Department for Infrastructure had requested

a financial contribution of £99,604.15 towards the provision of directional signage

to St. Peter’s cycle path and Waterworks Valley and towards the delivery of an

appropriate and suitable quality cycle link. Levels of contribution to transport

infrastructure and service improvements were assessed having regard to the

proposed development, the estimated increase in population and the estimated

additional transport need and traffic generated. The Committee was reminded of the

existence of the extant planning permit and was advised that the 2012 permit did not

324

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

require an additional £100,000 contribution in pursuance of reducing dependency

on the car and yet the relevant policy criteria remained unchanged. The Department

had acknowledged that the 2012 Permit could be implemented, subject to a reserved

matters application relating to landscaping and detailed design, without any further

financial contribution. The transport assessment submitted in support of the

application highlighted a reduction in the combined peak time vehicle movements

(existing use - 59) (2012 Planning Permit - 49) (proposed development – 29). The

applicants’ supporting statement of 12th January 2017, went on to state -

“The contribution sought for the encouragement of sustainable

transport is also in excess of those required for far larger developments

approved in recent years. The Applicant had reviewed the

contributions over the past five years for Castle Quay (384 units), The

Willows (62 units), Westmount Quarry (249 units), former Jersey Diary

(109 units), St. Saviour’s Retirement Village (213 units), the Metropole

Hotel (179 units) and the Old Court House Hotel (25 units) and found

that a contribution of approximately £1,000 per unit was required

specifically for the encouragement of sustainable transport.”

The Department acknowledged that the location of the site within the Green Zone

and the distance to sustainable parish centres were such that the development could

place a burden and cost on the community. However, given the scale and nature of

the extant Planning Permit; the anticipated reduction in vehicular trips; and, the level

of contributions secured for other residential development, the requested

contribution was not considered to be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind

to the proposed development. Notwithstanding the above, the applicants had

confirmed their agreement to the provision of rapid electric vehicle charging points

for each unit (the provision of an electric charging point to the WWII bunker was

not considered to be appropriate) and to the provision of a £40,000 contribution for

cycle infrastructure improvements (reference was made to correspondence from the

Department for Infrastructure dated 23rd January 2017, wherein it had been

confirmed that the applicant was willing to increase the financial contribution

towards cycle infrastructure improvements from £12,000 to £40,000). Members had

received a copy of this letter under separate cover.

A total of 9 letters of representation had been received in connexion with the

application and these had been included within members’ agenda packs. In addition,

a late paper from the Department for Infrastructure in relation to the increased

financial contribution towards cycle infrastructure improvements had been

forwarded to members under separate cover.

The Committee heard from Mr. D. Adamson, a resident of the area, who discussed

the positive consultation process which had been undertaken by the applicant

company. It was considered that the current scheme was more in-keeping with the

character of the area, reduced traffic volumes and the visual impact of development.

Consequently, residents supported the current scheme, subject to certain conditions

detailed within the officer report. Existing structures on the application site were

deteriorating and there was no on-site security. A number of abandoned vehicles had

also been noted.

Having considered the scheme the Committee unanimously approved the

application, subject to the conditions detailed within the officer report. The

Committee agreed that the applicant should, within 2 months of the date of approval,

enter into a suitable Planning Obligation Agreement pursuant to Article 25 of the

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, (as amended).

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

325

Field No. B978

(part of), La

Route du

Francfief, St.

Brelade:

proposed

formation of

all-weather

surface.

477/5/3(983)

P/2016/1401

A7. The Committee considered a report in connexion with an application which

proposed the formation of an all-weather surface on part of Field No. B978, La Route

du Francfief, St. Brelade. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade did not participate in the determination of this

application.


site was situated in the Green Zone and Policies GD1, NE7, ERE1 of the 2011 Island

Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee noted that Field No. B978 measured approximately 5 vergées and

was located to the north of La Route du Francfief. The field formed part of the

landholding associated with La Fontaine Farm to the east. Beyond the field’s

southern boundary there was a row of five detached houses, whilst to the west and

north the site was bordered by other agricultural fields. The application proposed the

formation of a warm-up arena which would be used in association with the

established equine/dressage use at La Fontaine Farm. The arena would measure 40

metres x 25 metres and the physical alterations required were minimal, involving

levelling of the site and laying a specialist surface, with timber retaining board to the

edge. Provided that the new arena was used in the manner described by the applicant,

the Department was of the view that the impact on the residential amenity of

neighbours would not be unreasonable. Consequently, the application was

recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed

within the officer report.

The Committee noted that the Land Controls and Agricultural Development section

had not objected to the application. However, 11 letters of objection had been

received from immediate neighbours who were concerned that the new use would

be harmful to the rural character of the area and prejudicial to neighbouring

amenities. The applicant had advised that there would be no noise from the warm-

up area, no catering facilities or portable toilets on the field and the site would be

used on no more than 8-10 occasions per year.

The Committee heard from Mr. J. O’Shea, who expressed concerns over the

potential for the future expansion of the business and the impact this would have on

the area. Mr. O’Shea asked that, if permission was granted, the permit be conditioned

to prevent expansion. He also asked that the number of occasions the site would be

used be restricted.

The Committee heard from Mrs. J. Hankin, who expressed support for the

application. She stated that the applicant had no intention of causing any disturbance

to neighbours.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mrs. C. Leng, Ms. A. Sinel and Mr. A.

Farman of MS Planning. Mrs. Leng assured the Committee that she had no plans to

expand. In any case, British Dressage rules permitted only one competition per

month. Mrs. Leng advised that the scheme had been amended in response to

neighbours’ concerns.

Mr. Farman stressed that the field would be used as a warm-up arena, with the

existing sand school being used for competitions. He showed the Committee a

sample of the ‘Activetrack’ surface material which would be used in the warm-up

arena and which could be removed. Mr. Farman advised that the arena would be

enclosed by the existing fencing and new hedging.

Ms. Sinel advised that her family had been one of the first to put down a proper

326

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

dressage arena. Whilst the arena was very good there was no warm-up area. Ms.

Sinel stated that she ran an annual dressage competition with 3 rings and she had

received no complaints from neighbours about these events. Interest in dressage was

growing and riders wished to compete at higher levels. Good facilities, to include a

proper warm-up arena to allow horses and riders to prepare, were, therefore,

essential. Ms. Sinel explained that competitors normally arrived approximately one

hour before their first test and left half an hour after they had finished competing.

Each test took 7 minutes and only 9 horses could compete in an hour. Noise would

not be an issue as horses were, by nature, ‘spooked’ by loud noises. This was a low

key sport which would not generate significant traffic. In concluding, Ms. Sinel

reminded the Committee of the success achieved by Mr. C. Hester, MBE, a dressage

rider from Sark who had competed at Olympic level and Jersey born para-equestrian,

Mr. S. Laurens.

In response to questions from Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier regarding the potential

for noise whilst horses and riders were being trained, Mrs. Leng stated that some

trainers used ear pieces and others did not. She was unable to hear any noise from

her house when the sand school was in use. In any case, the proposed area would

not be used for training but would be used as a pre-competition warm-up area.

Competitions would run from 9.00 am until 5.00 pm and parking would take place

in an existing paddock adjacent to the existing arena in Field No. B979.

The Committee heard from Mrs. H. Morris, who asked for some clarity on the hours

of operation as it had been stated that riders would arrive one hour before competing.

This suggested that riders competing at 9.00 am would need to arrive at 8.00 am.

Mrs. Morris also referred to earlier comments regarding dressage and its merits as a

sport and, in this context, she reminded the Committee of the need to assess the

impact of the scheme.

Mr. Farman confirmed that the hours of operation would be from 9.00 am until 5.00

pm. In other words competitors would not arrive before 9.00 am.

The Committee heard from Mr. M. Shearer, who wished to object to the application.

He asked whether the loss of an agricultural field for this purpose could be justified.

The case officer pointed out that the field was already used as a paddock so the

proposed development was in accordance with the established use. The Committee

was referred to the comments received from the Land Controls and Agricultural

Development Section to the effect that the equine industry was considered to be an

important contributor to the rural economy, both socially and economically.

Commercial liveries and riding schools were recognised as agricultural/rural

activities and projects supporting these industries were viewed in a positive manner.

Having considered the scheme, the Committee unanimously approved the

application, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer

report. The Committee directed that an additional condition be attached to the permit

making it clear that the hours of operation were 9.00 am until 5.00 pm (inclusive of

arrivals and departures).

Camellia

Cottage, Le

Mont du

Gouray, St.

Martin:

proposed

demolition and

redevelop-

A8. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A1 of a Ministerial Hearing

held on 3rd August 2012, considered a report in connexion with a revised application

relating to the demolition of the property known as Camellia Cottage, Le Mont du

Gouray, St. Martin and its replacement with 3 new dwellings with a basement car

park. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.

A site plan, drawings and a 3 dimensional model were displayed. The Committee

noted that the application site was located in the Built-Up Area of the Green

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

327

ment.

477/5/2 (597)

P/2016/0960

P/2010/1809

Backdrop Zone and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor. Policies SP2, GD1,

3, 7 and 8, SP7, BE3 and H6 of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular relevance to

the application.

The Committee noted that the former Minister for Planning and Environment had

granted permission for the demolition of Camelia Cottage and the construction of 3

new dwellings with basement car parking. The dwelling had been demolished and

remedial works carried out to the rock face at the rear of the site in order to stabilise

the same. A re-survey of the site had resulted in the submission of a revised scheme

which proposed repositioning 2 of the dwellings so that they were further away from

neighbouring properties and to reduce the level of excavation required. The overall

design concept remained substantially unchanged and the Department was of the

view that the site could comfortably accommodate the scale of development

proposed. Pursuant to the requirements of the Green Backdrop Zone (Policy BE3),

landscaping would be an integral component of the new development; moreover, the

development would be set against a large expanse of green-backdrop outside the

site. Therefore, the character of the area as a whole would not be undermined. Whilst

mindful of the objections which had been received regarding the design and impact

of the proposed scheme, including its impact on neighbouring amenities, the

Department did not believe that the proposed development would harm the character

of the area or the amenities of neighbouring residents. Consequently, the application

was recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions

detailed within the officer report.

The Committee noted that 4 letters of representation had been received in connexion

with the application. The Historic Environment section objected to the application

on the basis that it would be harmful to the setting of adjacent Listed buildings.

The Committee heard from Mr. C. Blackstone, who advised that, only that morning

he had received a 16 page document (a heritage assessment prepared by MS

Planning on behalf of the applicant) which he described as being “full of

irrelevancies”. Mr. Blackstone suggested that the Committee defer consideration of

the application in order to afford all parties sufficient time to digest the contents of

this document. He referred to comments contained within the document in relation

to Listed buildings in the vicinity and the visual impact of the development (Mr.

Blackstone provided the Committee with a series of photographs in this connexion).

Mr. Blackstone referred the Committee to his letter dated 9th August 2016, in which

he had set out his objections to the application. He also referred the Committee to a

letter of objection dated 26th October 2016, from the Historic Environment Team

which assessed the impact of the development on the setting of the range of Listed

Buildings in the vicinity. Mr. Blackstone stated that there appeared to be a conflict

between the case officer’s recommendation for approval and the objection of the

Historic Environment Team. He went on to refer the Committee to a letter dated

18th August 2016, from the National Trust for Jersey, which body had also

expressed concern about the impact of the development on the street scape.

In terms of the remedial work which had been carried out to the rock face, Mr.

Blackstone did not believe that this was in accordance with the approved application.

Mesh, as opposed to concrete, appeared to have been used on the rock face. He also

considered the application to be contrary to Policy SP7 – Better by design - in that

it was not in-keeping with existing development in the area and did not, therefore,

‘maintain and enhance the character and appearance of the area’. He also considered

the proposal to be at odds with Policy GD5 – skyline views and vistas - and he

referred the Committee to the photographs he had distributed in support of his

argument. Finally, Mr. Blackstone stated that the application was also contrary to

Policy BE3 – Green Backdrop Zone – and pointed out that a number of trees and

328

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

vegetation had already been removed and the development would be ‘visually

prominent/obtrusive in the landscape’. He concluded by stating that he did not

believe that the Committee had the statutory power to ‘over-ride’ Island Plan

Policies so any decision to approve the application would be ultra-vires.

In response to a question from a member, the Director of Planning confirmed that

the existing approval was a significant material planning consideration and the

scheme could be implemented immediately. Work had already commenced on site

and the permit was not, therefore, time limited. The Director reminded the

Committee that the Island Plan Policies directed development to the Built-Up Area

and sought to manage the impact of development. For example, Policy GD5

specifically referred to serious harm arising from development and it was in this

context that the Committee had to consider the impact of development.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agents, Ms. G. Deane and Messrs. A.

Dubras and J. Le Sueur. Ms. Deane advised that she believed that the majority of

work on stabilising the rock face had been completed. Mr. Le Sueur advised that,

following discussions with the Department, revisions to the treatment of the rock

face had been agreed. The proposal to use shotcrete on the rock face had been

abandoned and replaced with a treatment which utilised rock anchors with netting

and seed spraying, in a similar manner to the treatment of the rock face at

Westmount, St. Helier. The Director, Development Control stated that, as it

appeared that the applicant was now proposing a revised engineering solution for

the rock face, he wished to ensure that there had not been a procedural oversight in

terms of the adoption of the same. He suggested that, if the Committee was minded

to grant permission, this could be dealt with by attaching a condition to the permit.

The Committee concluded that, given the fact that not all members had had the

opportunity to consider the heritage assessment as it had only been distributed on

25th January 2017, consideration of the application should be deferred until the next

scheduled Committee meeting. This would also give the Department the opportunity

to clarify the status of the revised engineering solution for the rock face.

The

Homestead

(site

adjoining), La

Rue de

l’Etocquet, St.

John: proposed

demolition of

shed/

construction of

dwellings.

477/5/3(147)

P/2016/1312


proposed the demolition of an existing shed adjoining the property known as The

Homestead, La Rue de l’Etocquet, St. John and the construction of 3 new dwellings.

The Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.


site was located in both the Built-Up Area and the Green Zone. Policies GD1, E1

and NE7 of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular relevance to the application.

The Committee was advised that the application site consisted of a modern

agricultural shed and surrounding yard to the immediate north of a cluster of

residential buildings west of St John’s Village. The site was surrounded on three

sides by agricultural land. The application proposed the demolition of the existing

shed and thereafter, the construction of 3 new dwellings on the site. The Committee

was advised that, under the 2002 Island Plan, the entire site had been in the Built Up

Area. However, in 2011, part of the site (an area of open yard) had been re-zoned as

Green Zone.

The planning history of the application site was central to consideration of the

current application. The Committee was advised that 2 different extant permissions

for redevelopment existed. Permission for the construction of 2 dwellings had been

granted in April 2009 and work had commenced on site. Secondly, outline

permission for the construction of 3 dwellings had been granted in December 2014.

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

329

The current application proposed a new scheme which was broadly similar in scale

and layout to the most recent outline consent. The proposed development was

described as a ‘farmstead’, with 3 dwellings arranged in a U-shape around a central

courtyard. The scheme comprised a 2½ storey main house in the centre of the site,

with an adjoining lower wing to the east and a further detached 2½ storey dwelling

to the west. The new units complied with the required space standards and the use

of traditional materials (including granite, render, natural slate and pantiles) was

considered appropriate. This was a substantial site and the new dwellings fitted

comfortably with ample room for car parking and outside amenity provision. The

department had received a single letter of representation from a neighbour to the

south-west raising concerns in respect of potential overlooking and loss of privacy.

In response the first floor windows to the western elevation of unit One (which

served bathrooms and dressing areas) would be obscure glazed. Notwithstanding the

partial re-zoning of the site, on the basis of the recent planning history, the

Department was recommending approval, subject to the imposition of certain

conditions detailed within the officer report.

The Committee noted that whilst no persons present wished to speak for or against

the application, the applicant’s agent was present should members have any

questions.

Having considered the application, the Committee unanimously approved the same,

subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report.

Sunset View,

Les Fourneaux

Estate, St.

Brelade:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

477/5/3(979)

P/2016/1159


proposed the demolition of the property known as Sunset View, Les Fourneaux

Estate, St. Brelade and its replacement with 2 x 3 bedroom dwellings with associated

car parking and landscaping. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January

2017.


application.

A site plan, drawings and a 3 dimensional model were displayed. The Committee

noted that the application site was located in the Built-Up Area and that Policies

SP1, SP2, SP7, GD1, GD3, GD7 and H6 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to

the application.

The Committee noted that Sunset View was a detached one and a half storey

dwelling located within Les Fourneaux Estate, on the south side of Rue de la

Corbière. The estate formed part of the Built-Up Area, wherein there was a

presumption in favour of new residential development. The property was located on

the west side of the estate, with open countryside to its immediate west.

The application proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling (and ancillary

structures) and the construction of 2 new dwellings. The proposed new development

complied with the published residential standards in respect of internal room sizes,

garden space and car parking provision (3 car parking spaces were proposed for each

dwelling). The new dwellings would be finished predominantly with a white

rendered exterior, together with panels of local-granite cladding and powder-coated

aluminium fenestrations. Architecturally, a contemporary design approach had been

adopted and, as such, the proposed new dwellings would be quite distinct from other

properties in the immediate vicinity. The Department had noted comments made by

neighbours who had suggested that the new dwellings would be ‘out of keeping’

with the character of the estate. Whilst recognising that the design of the scheme was

quite distinct when compared with neighbouring properties, this was not necessarily

considered to be problematic. The scheme made use of a simple and effective palette

330

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

of materials and overall the Department considered it to be a well-designed modern

development. Other concerns raised by nearby residents were also noted,

particularly in relation to the issue of traffic and the Estate road. The apparent

shortcomings of the Estate road were noted. However, in the Department’s view, the

additional traffic which would be generated by one additional dwelling was not

considered to be significant. Comments with regard to the traffic caused by

construction vehicles were noted and it was recognised that the construction process

could be disruptive. However, responsibility rested with the developer to ensure that

works did not unduly inconvenience local residents. The highway authority (the

Parish of St. Brelade) had been consulted and had not objected to the application.

The Department was recommending approval, subject to the imposition of certain

conditions detailed within the officer report.

4 letters of representation had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee heard from Mrs. G. Horn, who lived next door to the application

site. Mrs. Horn advised that whilst she was not opposed to the re-development of the

site per se, she was extremely concerned about the impact of the proposed balconies

on her privacy, particularly as she was an occasional naturist. The case officer

referred the Committee to proposed condition No. 2, which stated that an obscure

glazed privacy screen should be installed on the northern end of the first floor terrace

of unit No. 2. Mrs. Horn also expressed reservations about the proposed design of

the dwellings in what was essentially a rural area.

The Committee heard from Mr. L. Horn, who stated that the submitted drawings

appeared to suggest the demolition of a wall in his ownership. He too expressed

concerns regarding loss of privacy.

The Committee heard from Mrs. S. Steedman, a resident of the Estate. Mrs.

Steedman expressed concerns regarding road safety. She believed that the reason the

Parish of St. Brelade had not commented on the application was because the road

was, in fact, administered by the States of Jersey. However, the Department for

Infrastructure had no interest in the internal Estate road arrangements and Mrs.

Steedman advised that residents were looking to the Committee to consider the

safety issues arising from the development. Les Fourneaux Estate road was a single

track road with no formal passing places. It was impossible for vehicles to pass and

this meant that cars frequently had to wait at the entrance to the Estate on the inside

of a blind bend, invisible to vehicles travelling along La Rue de la Corbière. Vehicles

often reversed up and down the Estate road when they met other vehicles which they

could not pass. At present there was sufficient space for internal manoeuvring on the

application site so that vehicles could enter and exit in a forward gear. The proposed

development would remove the ability to do this and vehicles would have to rely on

the Estate road for manoeuvring. The Estate road measured less than the 6.1 metres

required for manoeuvring and this would make the parallel spaces shown on the

proposed scheme difficult to use. Mrs. Steedman noted that a property immediately

opposite relied upon the application site to turn. Mrs. Steedman concluded by stating

that whilst the application site was in the Built-Up Area, the level of development

proposed was just too great in this rural context. She was not concerned about the

design approach.

The Committee heard from Mrs. K. Gardner, who advised that when she had

purchased her property 2 years ago she had been informed that the Estate road was

administered by the States of Jersey. She confirmed that when she exited her drive

she relied upon Sunset View for manoeuvring. Mrs. Gardner was not opposed to the

redevelopment of the site but was of the view that proposed development was not in

keeping with the existing character and grain of development.

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

331

The Committee heard from the applicants’ agent, Mr. P. Van Bodegom of Page

Architects. Mr. Van Bodegom provided the Committee with the measurements for

the site and the access road (4.2 metres) together with photographs. He advised that

he had visited the site on several occasions and had not encountered any difficulties.

During this time construction work was being carried out at another property. Mr.

Van Bodegom stated that a mix of styles existed on the Estate and the character was

changing as properties were altered. The scheme proposed 2 modest, contemporary

dwellings, the height of which would be below the ridge line of the neighbouring

property and well below the roof line of the property to the south. The dwellings

would sit comfortably within the application site and materials such as granite

cladding would reference the local context. Mr. Van Bodegom stated that his

company had a pedigree for creating buildings of this type and he did not believe

that such development should be limited to St. Helier. He did not believe that the

application was contrary to Policy GD1. With regard to Mr. Horn’s concerns in

relation to a wall in his ownership, Mr. Van Bodegom did not believe that it was

intended to remove the wall.

The Committee asked whether it was appropriate to determine the application in the

absence of comments from the relevant highway authority. The Director,

Development Control reminded members that the Estate road was outside of the

application site. However, members had to be satisfied that adequate visibility splays

and manoeuvring space existed.

The Committee decided to defer consideration of the application pending

clarification on the ownership of the Estate road and confirmation that adequate

visibility splays and manoeuvring space existed. The majority of members stated

that the proposed design was not an issue.

Camrose

House,

Heatherbrae

Farm, La Rue

de la Chesnaie,

St. John:

proposed 2

storey

extension.

477/5/3(984)

P/2016/1478


proposed the construction of a 2 storey extension to the north elevation of the

property known as Camrose House, Heatherbrae Farm, La Rue de la Chesnaie, St.

John. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.

The Committee noted that whilst the application had generated no letters of

objection, the scheme had been submitted by a sitting States member. Consequently,

the Committee was required to determine the application.


site was located in the Green Zone and that Policy NE7 of the 2011 Island Plan was

relevant to the application.

The Committee noted that the proposed extension would form part of the existing

dwelling and would not facilitate a significant increase in occupancy. The extension

would house a triple garage with a gymnasium at first floor level. The design of the

extension would match the existing house and would be subordinate to the principal

dwelling as it would be lower in height and inset from the front and rear elevations

of the house. Camrose House was a detached property which was well screened by

landscaping. The Department was of the view that the proposed development would

not cause unreasonable harm to the character of the area.

The Committee noted that the applicant’s agent was present should any questions

arise. No persons present wished to speak against the application.

The Committee, having considered the scheme, unanimously approved the

application.

332

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

Natwest Bank,

Charing Cross,

St. Aubin, St.

Brelade:

proposed

change of use.

477/5/3(980)

P/2016/1197


considered a report in connexion with a revised application which proposed the

change of use to a restaurant of the Natwest Bank building, Charing Cross, St. Aubin,

St. Brelade. It was also proposed to install an extractor duct to the south east

elevation. The Committee had visited the site on 6th December 2016.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee recalled that the

application site was located in the Built-Up Area and was a Tourist Destination Area.

The building was a Grade 4 Listed Building and Policies SP1 – SP5, GD1, GD7,

ER5, EVE2 and HE1 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to the application.

The Committee recalled having considered an application on 8th December 2016,

for the change of use of the above premises. During the course of the meeting it had

become apparent that the internal layout of the building had been revised to

accommodate an internal refuse store. The revised scheme had not been advertised.

Whilst the majority of members had expressed support for the scheme, the

Committee had concluded that determination of the application should be deferred

until such time as the revised plans had been advertised.

Members noted that the revised scheme had been advertised on 3rd January 2017,

and copies of the plans forwarded to those individuals who had objected to the

application. The Department had assessed the revised plans and had concluded that

storing refuse inside the building for removal by a private contractor on a daily basis

was acceptable and would not be harmful to the amenities of neighbouring uses or

the living conditions of nearby residents. The revised arrangements for waste

disposal were considered to present a better solution than external waste storage and

were supported by Environmental Health. Take-away and delivery elements of the

business had now been removed from the scheme as it had been concluded that these

functions could not be classed as ancillary to the restaurant business given the likely

impact on the surrounding environment. Consequently, the recommendation for

approval remained, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within

the officer report.

A further 4 letters of objection and 7 letters of support had been received following

the re-advertisement of the application.

The Committee received Mr. G. Reid, representing Randalls Limited. Having noted

that the Committee had received oral representations on the wider scheme at its

meeting in December 2016, and wished to hear comments only in relation to the

revised internal layout, Mr. Reid stated that he did not wish to comment.

The Committee noted that the applicant’s agent was present should any questions

arise.

In response to a member seeking clarity as to whether permission was required for

the take-away element of the business (which had now been removed from the

scheme), the Director, Development Control advised that whilst such a service was

generally considered to be ancillary to the main restaurant use and planning

permission was not normally required, there were occasions when the provision of

such a service could have an unacceptable impact on the area and could not be

viewed an ancillary. In the case of the application site, its location meant that the

provision of a take-away service could be problematic in terms of traffic generation,

highway safety or car parking. Consequently, it could not be regarded as ancillary

to the main restaurant use and the applicant had been advised that, on this occasion,

permission would be required. The applicant had subsequently decided to remove

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

333

this element from the scheme.



Our Lady of

the

Assumption

Roman

Catholic

Church, Gorey

Village Main

Road,

Grouville:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

477/5/2(687)

P/2016/1198

A13. The Committee, with reference to Minute Nos. A8 of 18th December 2014,

and A2 of 27th January 2015, of the former Planning Applications Panel, considered

a report in connexion with an application which sought permission for the

demolition of Our Lady of the Assumption Roman Catholic Church, Gorey Village

Main Road, Grouville and its replacement with 2 x 2 bedroom retirement homes

with associated car parking and landscaping. The Committee had visited the site on

24th January 2017.


site was located within the Built-Up Area, was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor

and was a Tourist Destination Area. Policies GD1, GD3, GD7, H6, H7, SP1, SP7,

SC03, WM1, LWM2 and LWM3 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee noted the planning history of the site which included, most recently,

the refusal of an application for 2 new dwellings in January 2015.

The Committee noted that the current scheme proposed 2 x 2 bedroom retirement

homes. It was considered that the scheme offered a more rational approach to the

quantum of development proposed for the site. The scale and massing had been

reduced when compared with previously refused schemes. The proposed dwellings

met the required minimum standards for new residential development in the Built-

Up Area and the applicant had overcome concerns raised by the Department for

Infrastructure with regard to visibility splays and surface water drainage. The

Department did not believe that the scheme would be harmful to neighbouring

amenities or detrimental to the character of the village. Consequently, the application

was recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions

detailed within the officer report.

6 letters of representation had been received regarding the loss of the Church and

the opportunity to create a community facility within the building. The Committee

was advised that whilst opportunities for a community related use had arisen in

recent years, no such proposals had materialised. In addition, a petition had been

received from objectors. The application was supported by the Parish of Grouville

and the Committee had received a late representation from the Connétable under

separate cover.

The Panel heard from Mr. F. Martin, a resident of the area, who believed that whilst

building retirement homes for the elderly was laudable, this was not the right site for

such development. Mr. Martin believed that the existing building should be

preserved as it had played an important part in the social history of Gorey. He

supported the use of the church building as a community facility which would was

much needed and would benefit many people. Mr. Martin stated that the scheme was

contrary to section 7 of the revised Island Plan and he expressed the view that, when

considered with other approved developments in the vicinity, there would be an

over-saturation of housing in the area. He was also concerned about the impact of

the development on infrastructure, traffic and highway safety. Mr. Martin expressed

the view that the species protection plan which had been submitted was inadequate.

With regard to the latter point, the case officer referred the Committee to proposed

condition Nos. 3 and 4 which required the submission of an ecological survey prior

to the commencement of development and the incorporation of bat access tiles.

The Committee heard from the applicant Sir David Kirch, KBE and his agent, Mr.

334

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

T. Bull of Axis Mason. Sir David addressed the Committee, advising that although

he had offered to sell the site to Mr. Martin, he had been unable to raise the sum

required to purchase the site and did not appear to have a plan for maintaining the

building. Sir David described Mr. Martin’s objections to the development of the site

as a “nuisance”. He advised that his main aim was to help people in the Island and,

to this end, he had already given £150 million to Islanders. He urged the Committee

to approve the application to allow these 2 homes to be built for senior citizens.

Mr. Bull advised that he had worked with the Department in order to address

concerns which had been expressed with regard to the previous scheme. The

proposed development would provide 2 modest, well-designed, energy efficient

lifelong homes of a scale which was considered to be in-keeping with the area. Both

units would have a dedicated car parking space and the scheme had been designed

with the community feel of Gorey in mind.



Millemont, Les

Varines, St.

Saviour:

proposed

change of

use/conversion

/new vehicular

access/

Extension

(RFR).

477/5/2(73)

P/2016/1097

A14. The Committee considered a report in connexion with a request for the

reconsideration of an application which had been refused by the Department under

delegated authority and which sought permission for various works at the property

known as Millemont, Les Varines, St. Saviour. The Committee had visited the

application site on 24th January 2017.

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St Saviour did not participate in the determination of this

application.

It was noted that the application proposed the following –

the change of use of a three bed dwelling to 4 x 2 bedroom dwellings;

the conversion of the gate house garage to habitable space;

the demolition of a bin store to the north-east of the site and the creation of a

new vehicular access onto La Val Aume;

the construction of a 2 storey extension to the south elevation;

the conversion of a garage to create a new one bed unit;

the conversion of 2 x one bedroom units to form a one bedroom unit;

various external alterations, to include the construction of dormers to the gate

house; and,

the construction of a bin store to the east of site and storage units to the south-

east of site.


site was located in the Green Zone and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

Policies NE7, GD1 and GD7 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to the application.

The Committee noted that the above application had been refused on the grounds

that the increased scale and massing of the scheme would result in an increase in the

footprint and volume of development on the site. The 3 new dwellings proposed

would facilitate a significant increase in residential occupancy. As such, the

proposals conflicted with Policy NE7 of the approved Island Plan, 2011: Revised

(2014), which sought to limit occupancy in the Green Zone to protect the

environment and to support the principles of sustainable development. It was

recommended that the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

The Committee was advised that whilst it was clear that the group of buildings

known as Millemont would undoubtedly benefit from a full renovation and

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

335

modernisation programme, the scheme proposed an increase in the number of

residential units from 6 to 9. To deliver the additional accommodation the

application proposed increasing the overall building footprint by 98 square metres,

in part by adding a two storey extension to the south elevation, thereby increasing

the scale, massing and volume of development on the site. Notwithstanding the

agent’s calculations of the number of existing and proposed bedrooms, there would

be a significant intensification of use given that the number of bedrooms would

increase from 9 to 15. References to other approved planning applications in the

Green Zone had been made. However, it was noted that such approvals were justified

by policy exceptions which were not present in this particular case. It was considered

that any scheme for this site should ensure that sub-standard sized units were either

removed or amalgamated to create adequately sized units and that, where

appropriate, units were refurbished to modern standards. Overall it was considered

that the same level of accommodation should be retained on the site.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. H. Falle and his agent, Mr. R. Godel.

The property had been owned by the applicant’s family for generations and the

existing buildings had been built anew in 1969. The adjacent outbuilding had been

divided into smaller apartments which did not comply with current space standards

or Bye Law regulations. The property was in need of a large amount of renovation

work, to include upgrading of the building fabric and internal layout alterations to

allow the existing building and adjoining outbuildings to comply with space

standards and building regulations. The current number of bed spaces was 19 and

could, theoretically, be increased to at least 21 if the habitable roof space in the main

house was used as bedroom accommodation. The number of bed spaces in the

refused application was 26. Using the theoretical maximum existing bed spaces, the

proposed increase in bed spaces would be 5, which Mr. Godel considered

insignificant. Mr. Godel stated that the Green Zone Policy test centred on whether

there was a significant increase in occupancy. Substantial landscaping

improvements were proposed on land owned by the applicant on both sides of Les

Varines and this would be beneficial both visually and ecologically. The gross

internal floor area of the existing buildings, to include stores and garages and the

roof space of the main house, was 710 square metres. The proposed total internal

floor area of all accommodation on the site was 782 square metres, resulting in a

total increase in gross internal floor area of 72 square metres, an area which would

normally be acceptable as an extension to a dwelling under current Green Zone

Policy. This increase in space allowed greater efficiency in terms of the number of

units. Mr. Godel argued that the proposed increase in gross internal floor area could

not be deemed to cause significant harm to the Green Zone. In concluding, Mr.

Godel stated that this was a ‘benign’ application which improved the

accommodation and delivered environmental improvements.

The Committee heard from Mr. Falle, who confirmed that his family had owned the

land since 1807. The family wished to regenerate the existing buildings, which were

in need of considerable renovation works. Mr. Falle felt that the proposed scheme

was well designed and provided 9 good sized units with amenity space. Mr. Falle

also discussed the proposed landscape improvements and ecological measures which

were proposed. The Committee was advised that car parking was provided for

members of the public wishing to visit the woods at Swiss Valley.

The Committee, having considered the application, concluded that whilst the scheme

was most attractive, it could not support the application as presented on the basis

that it was contrary to Policy. The Committee understood the applicant’s desire to

improve the existing buildings and was convinced that scope existed to carry out

improvements in accordance with the Green Zone Policy. Consequently, the

application was refused for the reasons set out above and the applicant was

encouraged to liaise with the Department on a revised approach.

336

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

La

Renaissance,

La Rue du

Genestet, St.

Clement:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment

(RFR).

1070/2/1/1

(354)

PP/2016/0506


reconsideration of an outline application which had been refused by the Department

under delegated authority and which sought permission for the demolition of the

property known as La Renaissance, La Rue du Genestet, St. Clement and its

replacement with a new 4 bedroom dwelling with associated landscaping. It was also

proposed to re-align an existing roadside hedge to the north of Field No. 138. The

Committee had visited the application site on 24th January 2017.


site was located in the Green Zone and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

Policies NE7, GD1, GD5, GD7, SP1, 4, 6 and 7 and LWM2 of the 2011 Island Plan

were relevant to the application.

The application proposed the demolition of the principal dwelling, a garage and a

shed. A workshop outbuilding would be retained. It was intended to construct a new

two storey, 4 bedroom dwelling with attic space and basement car park. A classical

design approach with painted stucco was proposed. This was an outline application

to consider the siting, scale and landscaping. The reserved matters would include the

design, external appearance, materials and means of access. Therefore the elevations

submitted were indicative. The site was located in the Green Zone and Policy NE7

set a general presumption against development. Certain exceptions were

permissible, such as the redevelopment of existing residential dwellings, where

proposal met certain criteria.

The application site was located in a prominent position on the crest of a hill and

enjoyed commanding views over the surrounding area to the sea. It followed,

therefore, that widespread views of the site existed from the surrounding area. Rather

than reducing the visual scale, mass and volume of the building, the proposed height,

floorspace, massing, size and scale of the building would all increase. The

Department considered this to be harmful to this rural part of the Green Zone. The

Committee noted that the above application had been refused on the grounds that the

size, scale, height and massing would facilitate a significant increase in occupancy,

would not give rise to the required demonstrable environmental gains and would

cause serious harm to the landscape character, contrary to Policy NE7 of the 2011

Island Plan (Revised 2014). In addition, the proposed development, by reason of its

size, scale, height and massing in this prominent location in the countryside would

seriously harm the character of the area and the skyline and have an unreasonable

impact on the character of the countryside, contrary to Policies SP4, GD1, GD5 and

GD7 of the 2011 Island Plan (Revised 2014). It was recommended that the

Committee maintain refusal of the application.

Together with 5 representations which had been included in member’s agenda packs,

a number of late representations had been received after the agenda had been issued.

Members had received these under separate cover.

The Committee received the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. D. Rees and their agents,

Messrs. M. Waddington and M. Stein. Mr. Stein addressed the Committee, referring

to the reasons for refusal and the wording of Policy NE7(3). Mr. Stein argued that

Policy NE7 did not require a reduction in visual scale, mass and volume. The

principal aim of the policy was restoration of the landscape character.

Approximately 90 – 95 percent of the Island was washed over by Green Zone and

Mr. Stein believed that it would be unreasonable and impractical to suggest that

every single house in the Green Zone could not increase in size. He referred the

Committee to the Countryside Character Appraisal (CCA) and noted that the

application site lay within area E7 (eastern plateau). The primary consideration of

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

337

the CCA was to protect and enhance the character of the Island’s coast and

countryside and the landscape impact of development proposals on the coast and

countryside were assessed and determined against the CCA. The scheme included a

number of proposals which would contribute to the repair and restoration of the

landscape character, to include significant tree and hedge planting. Mr. Stein

referred to approved schemes at the property known as Ancona, La Rue de la Coupe,

St. Martin, previously a dormer bungalow in a much more prominent and open

landscape. Permission had been granted for a new 2 storey dwelling with storage in

the pitched roof. This had resulted in a 59 percent increase in floor space, or a 90

percent increase if the roof space was included. This compared to the 52.5 percent

increase proposed on the application site, if the basement was excluded from the

calculations and 19.5 percent if the non-habitable roof space was excluded.

Furthermore, the level of environmental benefits at Ancona did not match those

proposed on the application site. Mr. Stein pointed out that the siting and design of

the proposed new dwelling would be much more sensitive and sympathetic than that

of the existing dwelling. The use of appropriate materials and colours would reduce

the visual scale and the dwelling would be set within the existing backdrop of trees.

The property would also be connected to the main foul sewer network. Mr. Stein

concluded by reminding the Committee that the application sought to replace an

existing 4 bedroom dwelling with a new 4 bedroom dwelling. The applicants were,

however, being penalised because of their aspirations to improve their home. Mr.

Stein urged the Committee to approve the application.

The Committee heard from Mr. Waddington, who urged members to be fair,

pragmatic and consistent. He believed that the scheme was in accordance with the

relevant Island Plan Policies and he referred the Committee to the text contained

with Policies SP7 and GD7. Mr. Waddington advised that the applicants wished to

construct a high quality home and that there would be no increase in occupancy. The

Department had encouraged the formation of a basement in order to reduce the

impact of the proposed dwelling. Mr. Waddington repeated Mr. Stein’s point that if

the basement and non-habitable roof space were excluded from the calculations,

there would be a 19.5 percent increase in floor space. The scheme had gone through

various iterations with the Department and had been reduced considerably. Mr.

Waddington was at a loss to understand why the Department felt unable to support

the application. He concluded by discussing the extensive landscaping proposals

included in the scheme and the environmental gains which would arise.

The Committee heard from Mr. Rees, who discussed the landscape restoration work

he and his wife had carried out over the past 20 years. They had received advice

from a number of professionals, to include the States of Jersey Arboricultural

Officer, officers of the Parks and Gardens Department and the Land Manager at the

Jersey Royal Company. It was their intention to carry out extensive landscape works

at La Renaissance. The highest quality materials would be used in the construction

of the proposed new dwelling and an area of land would be donated to the Parish of

St. Clement. Mr. Rees advised that the Parish and neighbours were supportive of the

application. He reported that a total of 14 modifications had been made to the scheme

in response to comments from the Department. The scheme proposed a fine dwelling

designed by a skilled architect and would include considerable landscape

improvements.

The Committee heard from Mrs. Rees who advised that she and her husband had

lived in the Island since 1990 and were passionate about Jersey. Mrs. Rees had a

degree in geography and, together with her husband, supported landscape restoration

and environmental gains. She advised the Committee that the couple’s previous

property had been designed by Mr. Alfred Waterhouse RA, an English architect,

particularly associated with Victorian Gothic Revival architecture. Mr. and Mrs.

Rees had won a civic trust award for the landscaping works carried out at the

338

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

property.

In response to comments made by the applicants’ agents in relation to the percentage

increases in floor space proposed, the case officer advised that the basement and roof

space could not be excluded from the calculations. With regard to the approved

scheme at Ancona, the case officer did not believe that this was directly comparable

as the application site was considered to be in a much more prominent position. Mr.

Stein refuted this point and advised that he had written to the Department confirming

all of the advice which had been received regarding the inclusion of a basement to

avoid any conflict with Policy NE7. Mr. Stein stated that it was totally unrealistic to

imagine that individuals would purchase a property in the Green Zone, demolish it

and build a smaller house in its place. He concluded by stating that agents were

frequently advised by the Department that ‘it was not a numbers game’. Mr. A.

Townsend, Principal Planner confirmed that ‘it was not a numbers game’ but the

applicants’ agents had used numbers in support of their arguments. Mr. Townsend

referred the Committee to the preamble in respect of Policy NE7, which Mr. Stein

had highlighted, and stated that the Department did not consider that the scheme

satisfied the requirements of the Policy. He also reminded the Committee of the

Independent Planning Inspector’s report in respect of the property known as

Windermere, La Rue des Platons, Trinity and the impact this had had on the

interpretation of the Policy. In addition, the Committee was reminded that this was

an outline application which dealt specifically with siting, scale and landscaping.

Having considered the application, the Committee endorsed the officer

recommendation and maintained refusal on the grounds detailed above. Whilst

members agreed that the proposed design (consideration of which did not form part

of the outline application) was of a very high quality, the visual impact of the

proposed dwelling was considered to be just too great.

Vale View, La

Profonde Rue,

Trinity:

proposed

conversion of

roof space/

installation of

dormer

window

(RFR).

477/5/2(336)

P/2016/1287



under delegated authority and which sought permission for the conversion of the

roof space to habitable accommodation and the construction of a dormer at the

property known as Vale View, La Profonde Rue, Trinity. The Committee had visited

the application site on 24th January 2017.


site was located in the Green Zone and was a Grade 3 Listed Building. Policies NE7,

GD1, GD7 and HE1 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to the application.

The application proposed the conversion of the roof space and the insertion of a cat

slide dormer to the north elevation. The size, design and proportion of the cat slide

dormer was not considered to be in keeping with this 19th century dwelling and its

traditional form. The dormer window was not of a vernacular style and would not

traditionally be found on a dwelling of this type. As such the scheme did not comply

with the relevant policies and the application had been refused. It was recommended

that the Committee maintain refusal.

The Committee heard from the Principal Historic Environment Officer, Ms. T. Ingle,

who advised that this1837 simple country house retained its historic character and

many of its original features. The Grade 3 Listing also included the interior of the

property. Permission had previously been granted for a generous rear extension. It

was evident from the current application that the required 2 metres headroom in the

roof space had resulted in a proposal for a large and incongruous dormer. The plans

submitted indicated the loss of the attic floor to accommodate the conversion of the

roof space. It was likely that further works would also be required to an historic

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

339

staircase. This was considered unacceptable in terms of the impact on the character

and significance of the building and the scheme could not be supported by the

Historic Environment Section.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. P. Livesey, his father, Mr. B. Livesey

and his agent, Mr. A. Farman of MS Planning. Mr. Farman advised that the applicant

had purchased the property with an extant permit for a 2 storey rear extension, which

was currently under construction. Alternatives to the proposed dormer had been

considered but these failed to provide the required 2 metres head room and some had

been deemed to be more harmful to the character of the property. Mr. Farman

advised that the interior of the roof had been damaged by the installation of modern

foam insulation. It was intended to strip this back and relay the internal slats, which

would have a lesser impact on the historic fabric of the building. Mr. Farman stated

that rear stairwell dormers of the nature proposed were found on a number of 19th

century dwellings of a similar form and construction to Vale View. The rear

elevation of the property had been significantly altered as a result of the extension

under construction and these changes had a material impact on the character and

authenticity of the dwelling. The proposed dormer would become part of the altered

rear façade. In concluding, Mr. Farman stated that the application appeared to have

been assessed against the unaltered rear elevation and the refusal was, therefore,

considered to be unreasonable.

The Committee heard from Mr. B. Livesey who advised that he was a Fellow of the

Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and it was in this capacity that he wished to

address the Committee. He informed the Committee that the property had been in a

neglected state and had previously been in danger of becoming a ruin. Significant

renovation works had been carried out, together with the rear extension. The width

of the proposed dormer was dictated by the width of the existing staircase. Mr.

Livesey also stated that the application had to be assessed in the context of the altered

rear façade.

The Principal Historic Environment Officer confirmed that her assessment of the

application was based on the property in its current form and not on the previously

unaltered rear façade. In response to questions from members regarding the scope

for a relaxation of the Building Bye Laws, the Committee was reminded that this

was a fire safety issue.

Whilst the Committee understood the applicant’s desire to utilise the roof space,

members were also mindful of the need to comply with Policy HE1 and the Building

Bye Laws. With the exception of Deputy J.M. Maçon of St Saviour, the Committee

maintained refusal of the application for the reasons set out above.

Mossgiel, La

Rue Ferriere,

St. Ouen:

proposed

variation of

condition of

permit (RFR).

477/5/3(697)

RC/2016/1119

A17. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A13 of 30th January 2014, of

the former Planning Applications Panel, considered a report in connexion with a

request for the reconsideration of an application which had been refused by the

Department under delegated powers and which had sought permission for the

variation of a condition attached to the permit in respect of an agricultural shed at

the property known as Mossgiel, La Rue Ferriere, St. Ouen. The Committee had

visited the site on 24th January 2017.


site was located within the Green Zone. Policies GD1, NE7 and ERE5 of the 2011

Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee was advised that the application proposed the variation of a

condition attached to permit RC/2013/0922 in order to facilitate the extension of a

temporary consent to allow the continued use of an agricultural shed as a dry store.

340

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

The Committee recalled that a temporary 3 year consent had been issued in 2007 for

dry storage and subsequently extended for a further 3 years in 2010 and then again

in 2013. An application had been submitted for a further extension and this had been

refused as a result of the lack of supporting evidence to demonstrate the continued

redundancy of the agricultural unit (Policy ERE5). The Department was, therefore,

recommending that the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

In response to a comment made by the applicant during the Committee’s site visit,

Mr. A. Townsend, Principal Planner advised that whilst the applicant was currently

advertising the agricultural shed as required to demonstrate redundancy, this had not

been the case at the time of assessment of the application. The applicant had stated

that when he had enquired at the Department he had not been made aware of the

requirement to demonstrate redundancy by advertising the shed. Mr. Townsend

stated that it was possible that the applicant had been given information at the main

reception desk on what was required to ‘get the application through the door’, but

not to meet the specific requirements of Policy ERE 5. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier

wished to ensure that the applicant was not being treated harshly and Mr. Townsend

confirmed that this would be taken into account when the Department informed the

applicant of the decision.

Having considered the application, the Committee decided to maintain refusal on

the grounds detailed above.

Seawood, La

Rue de la

Freminerie, St.

Saviour:

proposed

removal of

condition of

permit (RFR).

477/5/2(66)

RC/2016/1024


reconsideration of a retrospective application which had been refused by the

Department under delegated powers and which had sought permission for the

removal of a condition (No. 2) attached to the permit in respect of an agricultural

shed at the property known as Seawood, La Rue de la Freminerie, St. Saviour. The

Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.


site was located within the Green Zone and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

Policies NE7, E1, ERE 2 and 5, GD1, GD7 and TT3 of the 2011 Island Plan were

relevant.

The Committee noted that the application proposed the removal of a condition

attached to permit P/2012/0106 in order to facilitate the continued use of an

agricultural shed as a vehicle repair workshop. The Committee recalled that a

temporary 3 year consent had been issued for the vehicle repair use in 2012. An

application had been submitted seeking the removal of the condition and this had

been refused on the grounds that it would result in the loss of an agricultural building.

The temporary use condition on the original permit had been added to prevent the

shed being taken out of agricultural use on a permanent basis. The Agricultural

Statistics report released in October 2016, showed a mixed picture for the industry

in 2015, with milk production and apple orchards on the rise and potato exports

decreasing following poor weather conditions. With uncertainty in the agricultural

industry and investigations into alternative crops continuing, potential existed for a

revival within the industry and the need for existing agricultural buildings to be

retained for this purpose. Environmental Land Controls supported this view and had

objected to the permanent change of use of the shed. The Department was therefore,

recommending that the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

The Committee received the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. P. Hefford, their agent, Mr.

M. Stein and Mr. J. Quenault. Mr. Stein addressed the Committee, advising that

permission had previously been granted for the permanent change of use of some of

the former agricultural units on the site (the case officer confirmed that unit Nos. 1,

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

341

2, 5 and 6 had been taken out of agriculture). Since 2003 there had been a

requirement to re-apply every 3 years for a temporary change of use, with the result

that the applicants had no security of tenure, preventing investment in the business.

Mr. Stein pointed out that the UK Development Control manual clearly stated that

“a second temporary condition should not normally be granted and that a trial

period should be set sufficiently long for it to be clear by the end of the first

permission whether a permanent permission or refusal is the right answer”. Having

occupied premises at Seawood since 2006 (initially in unit No. 2 and subsequently

in unit No. 4) there had been no complaints about the operation of the business.

The Committee heard from Mrs. Hefford, who advised that the business had initially

been operated from unit No. 2, which was smaller. As the business grew the

applicants had taken the decision to move to the larger unit No. 4. Mrs. Hefford

stated that initially she and her husband had naively believed that continuing to work

hard would be sufficient to ensure their continued success. However, the applicants

had experienced considerable difficulty and stress in dealing with various States

Departments due to errors and the complexity and often conflicting elements of

government administration. This had ranged from being wrongly served with an

enforcement notice intended for the occupant of another unit, to being advised that

as the business had not been included on the list of occupants of the sheds they would

have to vacate the premises. The nature and extent of the problems they had

encountered had caused the applicants to consider ceasing trading. However, with

tenacity and the help of Senator S.C. Ferguson they had managed to continue

operating from Seawood Farm. Nevertheless, the requirement to continually seek

permission for the change of use of the shed to facilitate the same was a significant

problem. Mrs. Hefford also referred to the UK Development Control manual section

on time limited permissions and asked the Committee to consider whether 14 years

was considered to be a sufficient trial period. She also referred members to the aims

of the States of Jersey Strategic Plan in respect of optimising economic growth and

noted that there appeared to be a disconnect between this and Island Plan Policies.

Mrs. Hefford advised that the company employed 3 members of staff, all of whom

had just completed their mechanical engineering apprenticeships. In concluding,

Mrs. Hefford advised the Committee that she and her husband had married in 2016,

and they hoped that they could start the new year without a sense of impending doom

or the Sword of Damocles hanging over them in respect of the operation of their

business and, ultimately, their livelihood.

The Committee heard from Mr. Hefford, who articulated the considerable stress he

and his wife had been under as a result of the precarious position they were in with

regard to their tenure of the shed at Seawood Farm. They had considered relocating

and had sought and failed to identify suitable and affordable alternative premises. In

contrast to the problems which they had encountered with security of tenure, the

business had flourished and the applicant company’s reputation was such that Mr.

Hefford routinely had to turn work down due to the sheer volume.

The Committee heard from Mr. J. Quenault, who advised that he had known Mr.

Hefford for some considerable time. He described him as a hard working individual

who merely wished to make a success of his business.

The case officer explained that whilst the Department preferred not to re-issue

temporary consents, this had been done in the past to assist non-agricultural

occupants whilst also securing the use of the sheds for agriculture in the longer term

in the event of a revival in the industry.

The Committee heard from Mr. S. Surcouf, Land Controls Officer, who explained

that, as the agriculture industry was in a state of flux, the aim was to protect

agricultural buildings and land for future use by the industry. It was recognised that

342

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

some older agricultural buildings were no longer suitable for modern day farming

purposes and their loss from the industry was often conceded. However, agricultural

buildings constructed in the last 20 years were viewed as being suitable for

agricultural purposes. The difficulties this caused for non-agricultural users, such as

the applicant company, was recognised and Mr. Surcouf stated that it was not an

ideal position to be in. However, he reminded the Committee that, in the past, non-

agricultural users would not have been permitted to use agricultural buildings unless

they had been vacant for 10 years. He went on to state that the Department was

tasked with protecting the agriculture industry.

The Committee discussed the above application and was acutely aware of both the

dilemma faced by the applicant company and the need to secure the future use of

agricultural buildings for the industry. The Committee considered whether the

applicants should be required to demonstrate the redundancy of the shed in

accordance with Policy ERE5, or if sufficient justification existed to make an

exception to policy in this particular case, given the period of time which had elapsed

since the sheds had last been used for agricultural purposes. The Committee was

acutely aware of the need to consider each application on its own individual merits

and, in this particular case, members concluded that sufficient justification existed

for making an exception to policy to permit the change of use of the shed with certain

caveats. In approving the application the Committee directed that the permission be

made personal to the applicant company and stipulated that if the applicant company

ceased trading the shed would return to agriculture.

Having recognised that its decision was contrary to the officer recommendation for

refusal, the Committee noted that the application would be re-presented at the next

scheduled meeting for confirmation of approval and the wording of any conditions

which were to be attached to the permit.

Seawood, La

Rue de la

Freminerie, St.

Saviour:

proposed

removal of

condition of

permit.

477/5/2(66)

RC/2016/1024

A19. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A19 of the present meeting

considered a report in connexion with a request for the reconsideration of an

application which had been refused by the Department under delegated powers and

which had sought permission for the removal of a condition (No. 1) attached to the

permit in respect of an agricultural shed at the property known as Seawood, La Rue

de la Freminerie, St. Saviour. The Committee had visited the site on 24th January

2017.


site was located within the Green Zone and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

Policies NE7, E1, ERE2 and 5, GD1, GD7 and TT3 of the 2011 Island Plan were

relevant.

The Committee noted that the application proposed the removal of a condition

attached to permit P/2012/0106 in order to facilitate the continued use of an

agricultural shed as a commercial storage shed. The Committee recalled that a

temporary 3 year consent had been issued for the commercial storage use in 2012.

An application had been submitted seeking the removal of the condition and this had

been refused on the grounds that it would result in the loss of an agricultural building

which had to the potential to contribute to the long term agricultural needs of the

Island, contrary to Policies GD1, ERE2 and ERE5. The temporary use condition on

the original permit had been added to prevent the shed being taken out of agricultural

use on a permanent basis. The Agricultural Statistics report released in October

2016, showed a mixed picture for the industry in 2015 with milk and apple orchards

on the rise and potato exports decreasing following poor weather conditions. With

uncertainty in the agricultural industry and investigations into alternative crops,

potential existed for a revival within the industry and the need for existing

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

343

agricultural buildings to be retained for this purpose. Environmental Land Controls

supported this view and had objected to the permanent change of use of the shed.

The Department was therefore, recommending that the Committee maintain refusal

of the application.

The Committee noted that the applicant company, A.H. Turmel Builders Limited

had occupied the premises since 2009, without incident. The applicant had been

unable to attend the meeting due to ill health and was represented by Messrs. M.

Stein and J. Quenault. Mr. Stein advised that similar arguments to those detailed

above in Minute No. A19 applied. No employees were permanently based at the site

and there was, therefore, no undue noise, disturbance or significant increase in traffic

arising from the use.

The Committee considered whether the applicant company should be required to

demonstrate the redundancy of the shed in accordance with Policy ERE5, or if

sufficient justification existed to make an exception to policy in this particular case,

given the period of time which had elapsed since the sheds had last been used for

agricultural purposes. The Committee was acutely aware of the need to consider

each application on its own individual merits and, in this particular case, members

concluded that sufficient justification existed for making an exception to policy to

permit the change of use of the shed with certain caveats. In approving the

application the Committee directed that the permission be made personal to the

applicant company and stipulated that if the applicant company ceased trading the

shed would return to agriculture.

Having recognised that its decision was contrary to the officer recommendation for

refusal, the Committee noted that the application would be re-presented at the next

scheduled meeting for confirmation of approval and the wording of any conditions

which were to be attached to the permit.

L’Emeraude,

No. 4 Clos du

Ferme Rose,

La Rue de la

Pigeonnerie,

St. Brelade:

proposed

change of use

of agricultural

land to

domestic

curtilage/const

ruction of

swimming

pool and pool

house (RFR).

477/5/3(985)

P/20161145



delegated powers and which had sought permission for the change of use of

agricultural land to domestic curtilage at L’Emeraude, No. 4 Clos du Ferme Rose,

La Rue de la Pigeonnerie, St. Brelade. It was also proposed to construct a swimming

pool and pool house to the west of the property. The Committee had visited the site

on 24th January 2017.


site was located within the Green Zone and that Policies NE7, GD1 and GD7 of the

2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee noted that the application proposed the change of use of agricultural

land to residential curtilage, together with the construction of a swimming pool and

pool house. The application site formed part of the former Rose Farm Campsite.

L’Emeraude was a two and a half storey dwelling which occupied the westernmost

plot of four new houses. Permission had been granted in 2012 for the redevelopment

of the former camp site in light of the significant landscape restoration which had

been delivered, in part, by introduction of a landscape buffer to the northern and

western perimeters of the site.

The application had been refused on the following grounds –

The application site was located within a designated Green Zone (Policy NE7)

wherein there was a general presumption against development, including the change

of use of land to residential use to extend a domestic curtilage. To permit such

development would represent a departure from the 2011 Island Plan (Revised 2014)

344

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

for which there was insufficient justification. Consequently, the presumption against

development contained under Policy NE7 prevailed;

The proposed development would result in the introduction of a substantial two

storey building which, by virtue of its excessive size and scale, could not reasonably

be considered to be a modest and proportionate ancillary building. As such, the

proposal was contrary to Policy NE7(2) of the 2011 Island Plan (Revised 2014).

Moreover, the extent of development was such that the proposed scheme was

considered to diminish the significant landscape restoration delivered under

planning reference P/2012/0992.

It was recommended that the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Ms. M. Thompson and her agent, Mr. M.

Stein of M.S. Planning. Mr. Stein emphasised that when the original permission had

been granted in 2012 to redevelop the former camp site, fields 757, 737, 760 and

762 had been returned to agricultural land. In his view, this was a successful gain

for agriculture and the refusal to permit his client to change the use of a small strip

of poor agricultural land to domestic curtilage did not make sense. At the time that

his client had acquired the property, L’Emeraude, that particular piece of land was

unconditional and was his client’s garden.

As regards the design of the pool house, Mr. Stein indicated that it had been

modelled on one at Woodside Farm House, La Rue L’Aleval, St Peter. That pool

house had a larger footprint than the one proposed at L’Emeraude, albeit it was 3

centimetres lower in height. It was also located in the Green Zone and had been

approved by the Department under delegated powers. Mr. Stein also drew the

attention of the Committee to the permission that had been granted more recently at

Rose Farm House, which was less than 50 metres from his client’s property, for the

construction of a 4 bay garage with accommodation in the roof space. He contended

that the visual impact of the latter was much greater than the proposed pool house,

which would be hidden from public view.

Ms. Thompson informed the Committee that she had previously lived in apartments

and that L’Emeraude was her first house in Jersey. In her view, the strip of land to

which the application referred was not agricultural land, but her garden, and it was

the Department which had requested that she submit a change of use. She expressed

the wish to develop her home to make it comfortable both for her use and to enable

her to entertain high net worth individuals in an attractive environment to facilitate

the promotion of Jersey. She further emphasised that none of her near neighbours

had objected to the proposals.

Mr. R. Greig, Planning Officer, on behalf of the Department, notified the Committee

that there was no suggestion that the relevant piece of agricultural land was

commercially viable. However, it had a clear environmental value as a landscape

buffer. He reminded the Committee that the original 2012 development had only

been approved on balance, in light of significant landscape restoration. Whilst the

applicant was correct in stating that the Land Controls Section had not placed any

conditions on the land, that Section had pointed out that this did not mean that its

authorised planning use was as a garden. In respect of the Woodside Farm House

pool house, that had been permitted, he contended, because the principal dwelling

was larger than the applicant’s property and the proportion between it and the pool

house was appropriate. In the Department’s view, the size of the pool house at

L’Emeraude was too big and, therefore, disproportionate in relation to the size of the

principal dwelling.

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

345

Committee members expressed some sympathy with the applicant and indicated that

they felt that there was scope for an alternative scheme on the site. However, for the

reasons set out above, the Committee unanimously decided to maintain the refusal.

North Lynn

Farm/Field

Nos, 766 and

767, La Rue du

Clos Fallu, St.

Martin:

proposed

erection of

marquees/

siting of

trailers (RFR).

477/5/3(388)

MS/2016/1213


reconsideration of an application, which had been refused by the Department under

delegated powers and which had sought permission for the erection of 2 marquees

on Field Nos. 766 and 767, North Lynn Farm, La Rue du Clos Fallu, St. Martin. It

was also proposed to store 2 trailers in the fields. The Committee had visited the site

on 24th January 2017.


site was located within the Green Zone and that North Lynn Farm was a Listed

Building. Policies NE7, GD1 and GD7 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee noted that the above application had been submitted under the

Moveable Structures Order and proposed positioning 2 marquees at the northern end

of Field Nos. 766 and 767 in order to facilitate the construction of the St. Martin

Parish float for the Battle of Flowers. The Committee was advised that, in February

2016, permission had been granted for the temporary change of use of Field No. 766

to permit the erection of 2 marquees and associated structures for 6 months each

year. At that time it had been concluded that a temporary, non-continuous,

community facility where there would be no permanent loss of agricultural land was

acceptable. However, the current scheme sought permission on a permanent basis.

The justifiable need for the facility had to be balanced against the need to protect the

natural environment and to safeguard farmland.

The application had been refused on the grounds that the siting of the marquees and

associated structures on a permanent basis was considered inappropriate, relative to

the rural character of the landscape. Moreover, there were considered to be no

compelling grounds in this instance for rebutting the presumption against the loss of

good agricultural land. The proposals were therefore, contrary to Policies SP1, SP3,

SP4, ERE1 and NE7 of the 2011 Island Plan. It was recommended that the

Committee maintain refusal of the application.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. A. Pallot, the Chairman of the St.

Martin’s Battle of Flowers Association. He highlighted to the Committee the

difficulties that the Association had encountered in seeking to find a permanent,

suitable, location for the construction of the St. Martin Parish float. The Association

had previously used the Parish depot, land at the school and the Barrette’s sheds

before being granted permission in 2016 for the temporary change of use at Field

766. During the period from March to August the Association had kept a large

marquee on that Field. Mr. Pallot indicated that the cultivation of potatoes had

continued during this period and the cattle had been able to graze. Therefore, he

submitted that the agricultural use of the area had not been adversely affected by the

Association’s presence. He emphasised that the Association continued to look for a

permanent structure and was a well-supported organisation, with a membership

ranging in age from 6 to 93.

Mr. R. Greig, Planning Officer, on behalf of the Department, informed the

Committee that if it were to maintain the refusal in respect of the current application,

the permission for the temporary change of use of Field No. 766 to permit the

erection of 2 marquees and associated structures for 6 months each year would

remain extant.

The Committee members appreciated the difficulty which the Association had

encountered in finding a suitable venue for the construction of the Parish float. They

346

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

were encouraged by the hard work that the applicant and his team were doing to

keep the spirit of the Battle of Flowers alive in St. Martin. Consequently, they

expressed support for the scheme and decided to grant permission, contrary to the

officer recommendation. However, in doing so the Committee requested that the

permission should be granted for a period of 3 years only, to give the applicant time

to look for a more permanent arrangement and further decided that the permission

would be uniquely linked to the St. Martin’s Battle of Flowers Association. The

Committee noted that the application would be re-presented for formal approval on

23rd February 2017, for the purposes of formally setting out the reasons for approval

and any additional conditions which were to be attached to the permit.

Echo du Vent

& Field No.

293, La Rue

des Platons,

Trinity:

proposed

change of use

of field/new

access (RFR).

477/5/2(752)

P/2016/0674



delegated powers and which had sought permission the change of use to domestic

curtilage of part of Field No. 293, La Rue des Platons, Trinity. In addition, it was

proposed to extinguish an existing vehicular access associated with the property

known as Echo du Vent and create a new access on to Rue des Platons. The

Committee had visited the site on 24th January 2017.


site was located within the Green Zone and that Policies NE7, SP4, GD1 and GD7

of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee noted that the property known as Echo du Vent already benefitted

from vehicular access. Whilst it was acknowledged that the existing access might

not meet the requirements of the Department for Infrastructure, the application failed

to demonstrate that this resulted in a significant highway safety issue. If highway

safety was a concern, improvements to the visibility splays of the existing driveway

(including the removal of a pillar) should be investigated in the first instance before

considering the introduction of a new driveway across Field No. 293. The proposal

to create a new access in Field No. 293 was considered to result in -

the extension of domestic curtilage by creating a driveway in Field 293 -

contrary to Policy NE7;

the creation of a new opening which would result in the loss of boundary

features, banques, trees and hedgerows – contrary to Policy NE4;

the use of brick paviers and granite chippings in Field 293, was regarded as an

unsympathetic material for an agricultural field, which was considered to

result in incremental loss and erosion of landscape character and to the

domestication of the countryside and harm to the character of the area –

contrary to Policy NE7.

The Committee noted that during the life of the current application, works had

commenced and part of the field had been levelled with hardcore. Mr. R. Greig,

Planning Officer, on behalf of the Department, informed the Committee that this

hardcore had subsequently been removed and, therefore the third reason given for

refusal in the decision document issued on 19th July 2016 fell away.

The application had been refused on the grounds detailed above and it was

recommended that the Committee maintained refusal.

The Committee heard from the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. M. Le Feuvre and Mr. R.

T. Webster. Mr. Webster addressed the Committee, advising that Mr. and Mrs. Le

Feuvre had been particularly aggrieved that one of the stated reasons for refusing the

application had been that they had failed to submit information to demonstrate that

there was a traffic safety issue, in order to justify the creation of the new vehicular

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

347

access to their property, having regard for GD1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011.

He contended that the application had identified five separate difficulties with the

vehicular access to Echo du Vent, namely:

(1) that the configuration of the existing site access meant that vehicles entering

the property from the east needed to cross over onto the other side of Rue

des Platons, in order to gain access, as there were no places in the vicinity

for vehicles to turn around in order to access the property from the west;

(2) poor visibility

(3) that there was the risk of conflict as, at its junction with Rue des Platons,

the applicants’ driveway merged with an adjacent private access, which

served 3 neighbouring properties to the west;

(4) the existing front driveway pillars caused substandard visibility; and

(5) the driveway was on a steep gradient.

All of these issues had, in Mr. Webster’s view, clearly been sufficient for the

highway authority to support the application. He emphasised that Mr. and Mrs. Le

Feuvre had no desire to enlarge the curtilage of their property, but simply wished to

achieve safer access to their home. The site of the proposed new entrance had been

dictated by the gradient of the land. Echo du Vent was on elevated ground, relative

to Rue des Platons and the existing driveway was at the highest part of the site, with

a gradient of 1 in 5. The proposed driveway was at the lowest part of the site and

although it did not attain the Department for Infrastructure standard of 1 in 20, it

nevertheless achieved a gradient of 1 in 12, ensuring the access would be shallower

and safer than was currently the case. This also secured the best possible visibility

splays.

Mr. Webster informed the Committee that all 3 of the neighbours were supportive

of the application and the owners of 2 neighbouring properties had written letters to

endorse the same, emphasising that it would create better visibility when accessing

their properties by vehicle and improve safety generally. There would remain only

one point of access into the bank along Rue des Platons and the new entrance would

have a low granite retaining wall, which would improve the appearance of the

location. Mr. Webster indicated that Article 19(3) of the Planning and Building

(Jersey) Law 2002 permitted exceptions to policy where there was sufficient

justification for doing so. He opined that the highway and safety grounds in this

case amounted to sufficient justification and he did not feel that it would be an

unacceptable precedent to set.

The Committee heard from Mrs. Le Feuvre who emphasised the importance to her

and her husband of the new access because of their safety concerns. She highlighted

that the previous owner of the property and a tenant had bothbeen involved in

collisions and there had also been a number of occasions on which she and her

husband had almost collided with other vehicles when exiting onto Rue des Platons

and also as the driveway of Echo du Vent merged with the adjacent private access

to neighbouring properties.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary, Chairman, indicated that she had some

concerns in relation to the application, because she had previously taken a hard stand

against such changes in use. However, having heard from Mr. Webster and Mrs. Le

Feuvre, the Panel understood the difficulties that were encountered by the applicants.

Furthermore, Panel members noted that Field 293 was not good agricultural land

and that the Highways agency was in support of the application. In the light of the

foregoing, the Panel expressed support for the scheme and agreed that permission

should be granted, contrary to officer recommendation. The Committee noted that

the application would be re-presented for formal approval on 23rd February 2017,

for the purposes of formally setting out the reasons for approval and any additional

348

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

conditions which were to be attached to the permit.

Blue Fountain,

La Route de la

Pulente, St.

Brelade:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment

(RFR).

477/5/3(907)

PP/2016/1244



under delegated powers and which had sought permission for the demolition of the

existing 2 storey restaurant known as Blue Fountain, La Route de la Pulente, St.

Brelade and its replacement with 2 new apartments with car parking. The Committee

had visited the site on 24th January 2017.


application.


site was located within the Coastal National Park and included a Grade 2 Listed

Abreuvoir (one of a collection of Island-wide historic roadside structures designed

for the provision of public water), which had been erected in 1871. Policies NE7,

SP4, GD1 and GD7 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee recalled that there was a strong presumption against all forms of

development within the Coastal National Park with limited exceptions and new

residential development was generally resisted. In addition, the creation of new

households within the Coastal National Park ran counter to the strategic aims of the

Island Plan in relation to sustainable patterns of development; reducing the need to

travel and reducing dependence on the private car. In this particular instance, the

application failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances which would justify

a relaxation of policy. Consequently, it had been refused on the grounds that it was

contrary to Policies SP1, SP4, SP7, GD1, GD7, BE6 and NE6 of the 2011 Island

Plan. It was recommended that the Committee maintained refusal of the application.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. A Hussain and the applicant’s agent,

Mr. P. Harding of BDK Architects. Mr. Harding took issue with the superimposed

elevations which had been displayed by the Department, as he indicated that they

had not been created by him, nor given to him, or his client, to check for accuracy

before being displayed.

Mr. Harding emphasised that the demolition of the existing 70-seater

restaurant/take-away outlet and staff accommodation and replacement with one No.

2 bed and one No.3 bed apartment would result in a significant reduction in the

current number of vehicle trips from in excess of 100 per day. Further, it would

eliminate the need for any on-street parking, as sufficient parking spaces for the 2

apartments were included within the scheme.

He argued that the current scheme would enhance the area and indicated that the

principle of the use of brown field sites was an established one. Moreover, he

contended that the lack of adverse comment by the National Trust for Jersey was

indicative of a tacit endorsement of the scheme.

Mr. Harding drew comparisons with a former scheme, which had been approved in

2010 and was still ‘live’ (‘the 2010 scheme’), for a change of use from the restaurant

to a 5-bedroom domestic dwelling. He stated that the 2010 scheme contained 5

bedrooms and a study, so could, effectively, be considered as a 6-bedroom property.

He indicated that the current proposal resulted in a reduction in size and scale by

comparison with both the 2010 scheme and the existing building. Further, he

suggested that the site was unsuitable as a family home and that the reduction in the

total number of beds on the site (from 6 to 5) would be beneficial. He contended

22nd Meeting

26.01.17

349

that the raised amenity area to the rear of the site was not visible from the public

road and would not make a visual impact.

He emphasised the environmental benefits of the proposal, namely the cedar roof,

the proposed soft landscaping to the front of the site, the reduced intensity of

occupation, increased energy efficiency and the repair and restoration of landscape

character. He indicated that the current proposal moved the building further away

from the Abreuvoir than it was currently and stated that it was proposed that it should

be framed in soft landscaping.

As regards the presumption against new development within the Coastal National

Park, Mr. Harding drew the attention of the Committee to the permission, which had

been granted in 2012, for the demolition of the Chateau Plaisir property and the

construction of 3 No. 4 bedroom houses. He asked the Committee to consider

whether they would prefer to see a 70 seater restaurant/take-away outlet remain on

the Blue Fountain site, or 2 energy efficient, eco-homes.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. Hussain, who emphasised that he was

not a property developer. He had lived in the property for 32 years and considered

it his home. He wanted to remain there and, mindful that it required major work,

wanted to enhance it for both his benefit and that of the local area, by creating eco-

homes. He was keen to avoid it continuing as a restaurant, with the associated noise

and parking issues. He also informed the Committee that there was an issue with

raw sewage in the garden of the property and that he intended to have mains drains

installed.

The Committee heard from Mr. C. Jones, Principal Planner, on behalf of the

Department. He accepted that the applicant, and his representative, had not seen the

superimposed elevations which had been displayed, but assured the Committee that

all the measurements and detail had been taken from the applicant’s submissions.

He reminded the Committee that the 2010 scheme had shown a 5-bedroom property,

rather than a 6-bedroom property and that a reduction in intensity was only one

consideration. He emphasised that the applicant had not provided any financial

information to demonstrate the need for 2 units.

Connétable J. Gallichan, Chairman noted that, like the previous permission, the

current application included rooms described as studies, which could be used as

bedrooms.

The Committee heard from Ms. T. Ingle, the Principal Historic Environment Officer

in relation to the Abreuvoir. She indicated that she had not been consulted when the

2010 scheme was approved and felt that it was an important feature, which was

currently compromised by the position of the existing conservatory. She expressed

the view that the proposed scheme was also overbearing in respect thereto.

The Committee discussed the proposal and recalled that when members had visited

the site on 24th January 2017, they had been concerned about the restricted space

for turning and manoeuvring for the parking spaces. The Committee emphasised

the very high presumption against development within the Coastal National Park

and further felt that the scheme compromised the Abreuvoir. For these reasons the

Committee unanimously decided to maintain refusal of the scheme.

states greffe minutes - government of jersey · 22nd meeting 26.01.17 323 the living legend, la rue...

Documents