Les Ormes Golf & Leisure Village, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade: Determination of Planning Application (PP/2010/1268)

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 18 January 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2010-0139

Application Number: PP/2010/1268

(If applicable)

Decision Summary Title:

Les Ormes Golf & Leisure Village, Le Mont a la Brune, ,

St. Brelade, JE3 8FL

Date of Decision Summary:

13 December 2010

Decision Summary Author:

A Townsend

Principal Planner

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

N/A

Written Report

Title:

Planning and Environment Report P/2010/1268

Date of Written Report:

12 November 2010

Written Report Author:

A Townsend

Principal Planner

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject: Les Ormes Golf & Leisure Village, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade, JE3 8FL

Masterplan for the redevelopment of leisure village comprising construct of new greenkeeping facilities, construction of 12 No. staff accommodation units, construction of 6 No. self catering units. Change of use of existing staff accommodation to residential, relocation of gymnasium to existing tennis centre, construction of 22 No. self catering units on location of redundant buildings and conversion of existing store building to self catering accommodation. EIA Submitted.

Decision(s):

Approval following amendment of application to show Greenkeepers shed lowered and the 3 existing staff units in South East corner retained as staff units or used for self catering, with a commensurate reduction in the number of new build units proposed elsewhere.

The Greenkeepers Shed can then be approved under Delegated Powers.

Reason(s) for Decision:

The Minister considered the Department’s report of 12 November 2010 at a Public Ministerial Meeting on 26 November 2010 and deferred for further consideration.

The Department’s recommendation was that although much of the Masterplan was acceptable, there were reservations with regard to the greenkeeper’s hut and the number of self-catering and staff units. The proposal to replace three existing staff units with new buildings enabling the existing to become open market housing was wholly unacceptable.

The Minister noted both the policy issues and concerns raised by the Department and also the recreational and economic benefits to the Island, and concluded as follows.

Greenkeepers Shed – The Minister had asked the applicant to consider putting this underground.

The applicant responded that this would cost an additional £220,000. As an alternative, they offered to lower the building further so that it would be almost entirely obscured from view from outside the site and particularly from St. Ouen’s Bay. As the Island Plan policies in principle accept the improvement of tourism and recreational facilities provided they have no detrimental landscape impact, this can be accepted.

It is noted that as part of that detailed application the National Trust suggest that the building should be moved further to the east, closer to the existing buildings. This has been countered by the applicants who note that there is an existing band of landscaping which could be retained if the building is constructed as proposed. If it is moved closer to the other buildings then this landscaping strip would be diminished.

Move Gym to first floor balcony within the Tennis Centre – Acceptable.

Demolish existing gym building and staff accommodation replacing these staff units with a new staff block in the north eastern corner of the site – Acceptable.

Construct new self-catering units in the north-east corner of the site and in place of the eastern green keeper’s shed and gym and staff block (30 units in total) – Acceptable. The policies of the Island Plan allow for the extension of existing tourist accommodation sites, and the success and value to the Island economy of these units has been proven. Although the St. Ouen’s Planning Framework Policies presume against the construction of new self-catering accommodation, it was noted that the locations proposed would not be visible from the wider St. Ouens Bay Area.

Alamo – proposed refurbishment and creation of dormitory self-catering unit – Acceptable. The Minister asked however that the value of this building as a Registered structure be investigated by MRLAG.

Replace three self-catering units on the eastern side of the site with three new staff units in the north-east corner, allowing the existing staff units to be used as open market A-H housing – Not acceptable. These three units were allowed as recently as 2006 on the basis of a need for staff accommodation on the site. Policy H14 of the Island Plan expects such to be retained whilst there is still a demand for it on the site which there clearly is in this case. It would be inappropriate to allow these to be lost to open market housing and to allow replacement staff accommodation in their place. It was accepted however that these three units could either be retained as staff accommodation, or used as self catering, on the basis that the number of new build units proposed elsewhere was reduced by 3.

Further details – The Minister noted that this was an Outline application and that further details would be required through a Reserved Matters application. Conditions are imposed as set out below.

Proposed Conditions

Reserved Matters application(s) to be submitted.
Reserved Matters application to include full details of architecture which is expected to be of the highest quality together with full details of environmental construction proposals including recycling, use of grey water and ground or air source heat pumps.
All properties to be retained by the charity as part of this site and not sold off or let independently, as they have only been allowed on the basis of the use by the charity and the benefits thereof.
All self-catering units to be subject to the standard occupancy requirements.
Percentage for Art Statement to be included in the Reserved Matters application.
Retention of architect and confirmation that the development has been undertaken to their satisfaction.
All staff units to be retained for the use of staff working on this site for the applicant.

Resource Implications:

None

Action required:

Notify Agent.

Signature:

PLeg / PT Initials

Position:

Minister for Planning and Environment

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Les Ormes Golf & Leisure Village, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade: Determination of Planning Application (PP/2010/1268)

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

PP/2010/1268

Site Address	Les Ormes Golf and Leisure Village, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade, JE3 8FL.

Applicant	Mr Mike Graham Bosdet Foundation

Description	Masterplan for the redevelopment of leisure village comprising construction of new greenkeeping facilities, construction of 12 No. staff accommodation units, construction of 6 No. self catering units. Change of use of existing staff accommodation to residential, relocation of gymnasium to existing tennis centre, construction of 22 No. self catering units on location of redundant buildings and conversion of existing store building to self catering accommodation. EIA Submitted.

Type	Planning Principle

Date Validated	24/08/2010

Zones	Building Of Local Interest Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area St Ouen's Bay Planning Framewo

Policies	G2 - General Development Considerations C6 - Countryside Zone C7 - St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework C4 - Zone of Outstanding Character G2 - General Development Considerations G3 - Quality of Design TR1 - Development of New Tourist Accommodation TR5 - Development of Recreational Resources NR2 – Foul Sewerage Facilities

Reason for Referral	MINISTER CALL-IN

Summary/

Conclusion

This is an existing, successful site, providing both self-catering accommodation and leisure facilities. The applicant argues that it has a significant commercial benefit to the Island and the creation of new self-catering units is strongly supported by the Hospitality and Leisure Manger.

The application has been requested however so that the Department can understand the operator’s aspirations for the future of this site. The Department does not wish to unnecessarily restrict development, particularly where this is in the Island’s commercial interest, but any development has to recognise that the site lies outside the designated Built Up Area, and therefore there is a presumption against development. The majority of the site is in the Countryside Zone, part in the Zone of Outstanding Character, and the whole is within the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework Area.

Whilst some of the work proposed is considered acceptable, the effective construction of A-H Housing units is not, the argument for staff accommodation has not been adequately made, and the Department considers that other positions on the site should be entertained before a green keeper’s building is allowed in the position shown. A balance has to be struck with regard to the self-catering units. There is some policy support for these, although the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework is firmly against. It is considered that some reasonable expansion of the existing facilities on site would be reasonable, but this should be restricted to existing built areas of the site or away from the bay.

Officer

Recommendation

That the applicant be given the opportunity to amend the master plan, providing further information with regard to the need for staff accommodation, to reduce the quantity of new construction and to ensure that as far as possible, any new development is on existing developed areas of the site.

Site Description	The Les Ormes site includes a variety of different areas reflecting the site’s relatively recent planning history. Originally led by a camp site use, over recent years development has included the creation of a golf course with ancillary shop, indoor tennis courts, indoor football/netball, restaurant/bar, swimming pool, gym, self-catering lodges and an outdoor pursuit centre. The majority of the site lies within an area designated as Countryside Zone in the Island Plan. Parts however are within the Zone of Outstanding Character. All the development proposed within this application falls within the Countryside Zone.

Relevant Planning History	See Site Description, above. In addition, most recently applications for additional self-catering units and for a new green keepers shed have been withdrawn. Concern was expressed that the Department needed to understand the long term proposals for the site. The Department’s view was that the owners, looking at the site commercially, were understandably continually considering alterations to the range and volume of services available. In Planning terms however, the area lies within the Countryside Zone and within the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework Area, wherein there is a strong presumption against development. It was considered necessary therefore that the Department understood the long term proposals so that these could be fully understood, as a continual incremental and piecemeal increase in development on the site was not considered acceptable. In addition to this application, the Department has two further current applications. The first is for the construction of 6 self-catering units, 12 units of staff accommodation, and a storage shed. The second is for the creation of a new green keepers shed. These are also included within this overall master plan application. If this overall master plan is considered acceptable, then in principle these other application will also be acceptable, and the Department recommends that the details of these applications can be resolved under Delegated Powers. Equally, if these elements of the master plan are not considered acceptable, then these applications could be refused under Delegated Powers.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	See Site Description above.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	As existing, with additional self-catering, staff and A-H accommodation.

Consultations	Jersey Water – in their comments of 25 August raise no comment. The Historic Environment Team – have issued two responses, one with regard to the overall master plan, and one with specific relevance to the re-use of the Registered Alamo Building. With regard to the wider master plan, it is suggested that the archaeological impact needs to be more carefully considered, including the construction of landscaping bunds and the possibility of archaeological remains. With regard to the Alamo, the renovation to a new use is considered acceptable, in principle, although no details are presented at this stage. To ensure that the building is maintained and is not allowed to deteriorate further, a survey should be undertaken as soon as possible. Hospitality and Leisure Manager – in comments of 1 September strongly supports the proposals for self-catering accommodation. Transport and Technical Services (Waste Management Section) notes that the development will be connected to mains drains. TTS note however the requirement to upgrade the emergency storage facilities at the downstream public pumping station and the possibility that the pumps will also require upgrading, probably when Phase B of the development were to be implemented. The Natural Environment Section –note that no additional issues have been raised which are not mitigated in the EIA which has been submitted. Detailed comments are made with regard to the protection of the green lizard, which could be addressed at a detailed application stage. In addition, the species for any new landscaping should be agreed with The Natural Environment Section. The Environmental Protection Section – in their comments of 23 September are pleased to note that the wash bay will feed to the main sewer. A Condition is requested with regard to ensuring that any materials imported into the site are appropriate. The Environmental Health Officer – in comments of 29 September, notes that if the self-catering units were used as winter lets, these will need to meet appropriate standards. In addition, any contaminated land needs to be assessed, and any new unit should meet World Health Organisation Community Noise Guidelines. All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	Representations have been received from The National Trust and the Sociéte Jersiaisé. The National Trust asked for details of any records regarding the Alamo. The applicant has responded noting that it was used as an aircraft machine gun firing range, and sending on these comments to The National Trust. The Société in comments of 6 October note that work on site has over the years significantly changed the character of the area. They raise objection to elements of the master plan as their fear is that with the history of continuing expansion, yet more expansion may be considered in the future. They request that a Condition be put on any approval that no further application should be submitted for a significant period. Consideration shall also be given to redrawing the boundary of the protected area (St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework) so as to reflect the distinction between the development and the character of the designated area it was intended to reflect. The architects have responded in a series of letters dated 17th, 20th, 27th and 29th September and 8th and 12th October. In particular, they accept the drainage requirements noted, and that to avoid danger of bird strikes, that careful thought needs to be given to landscaping proposals. They do not anticipate that any form of material will need to be imported into the site and note the Natural Environment Section’s comments. In response of the comments of the Environmental Health Officer, they state that a Construction Environmental Management Plan would be submitted, but that no contamination has been noted. Any winter lets would be of a maximum of three months which is satisfactory under the Tourism registration. All consultations and responses from the Architect are attached as background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations The Architect’s Design Statement notes a number of polices from the Island Plan which may be relevant. It is considered that those most relevant are the standard Policies G2 (General Development considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design). In addition to the policy for this specific area (Countryside Zone Policy C6) and the use specific policies TR1 (Development of New Tourist Accommodation) and TR5 (Development of Recreational Resources). Policy NR2 seeks to prevent any development which may pollute groundwater. In the Countryside Zone there is a strong presumption against development. The policy (C6) does however list certain types of development which may be considered acceptable. This includes the conversion of existing buildings, extensions to existing tourist accommodation where that is in accordance with Policy TR1, and small scale new cultural and recreational facilities. Policy TR1 (Development of New Tourist Accommodation) allows for new tourist accommodation, but only in the Built Up Area. In the Countryside Zone extensions to existing tourist accommodation or the conversion of existing buildings will normally be permitted where the proposal satisfies a number of listed criteria. Policy TR5 (Development and Recreational Resources) states that the proposals for development and recreational resources will normally be permitted provided that a series of criteria are met. The site is also within the area covered by the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework. As Policy SO3 states, the main purpose of this is to protect and enhance the natural environment of the area. Policy SO10, states that small scale leisure, retail and other tourist facilities may, in principle, be acceptable. Policy SO32 (Recreation and Tourism Development) notes that these will only be approved if set criteria are met. Policy SO37 (Tourist Accommodation) sets a strong presumption against new hotel development including the extension of existing facilities. Self-catering facilities will not be permitted where it would result in the construction of new buildings, or the intensification of the use of the site. The Environmental Impact Assessment submitted to support the application notes the value of the existing operation, both in providing recreational facilities to visitors and local residents, but also the significant benefits from the self-catering units. The facilities offer a wide range of facilities including golf, indoor tennis, a pool, a gym, restaurant, self-catering lodges, indoor football pitches and an outdoor pursuit centre run by Pure Adventure Limited. It is estimated that there are now 5,500 visitors to the site per week. It is estimated that last year there was 3,650 self-catering guests equating to 25,623 guest nights. This represents 12% of the Islands self-catering accommodation. This has a significant beneficial multiplier effect on the local economy. The increased number of units proposed would add to this without a significant increase in traffic. It is estimated that there would be an additional 66 traffic movements per day. At a broad level therefore there is an arguable conflict between the commercial benefits to both the site and the Island of allowing for additional recreation and in particular self-catering facilities. This however has to be balanced against the environmental impact of creating such new facilities, particularly where these require new structures to be constructed in the countryside wherein there is a general presumption against development. Whilst in principle Policy C6 together with TR1 and TR5 potentially allow for some development for recreational or self-catering uses, (subject to meeting set criteria), the requirements of Policy SO37 of the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework in particular seeks to prohibit the development of self-catering accommodation where it would involve the construction of a new building or the intensification of the use of a site. The proposal includes five phases. The first is the construction of a new green keeper’s compound. This involves the construction of a new building on part of the existing putting green. Although, on balance, recommended for approval by the Department, this was considered unacceptable by Planning Applications Panel. Before the final decision could be issued that application was withdrawn. This building is on a currently undeveloped area, in that it does not include any buildings. It is understood that the existing facilities are split between two locations, but given the master plan now before the Department, it would appear that there are clear opportunities for the construction of one consolidated compound area elsewhere on the site where there are existing buildings, rather than to create a new building on an undeveloped area of the site. The second phase includes the construction of a storage shed, six self-catering units, and a total of 12 staff units. This is on land to the east of the existing self-catering lodges. Arguably, an extension of existing tourist accommodation may be acceptable under Policy C6 and TR1. Policy SO37 however states a strong presumption against the construction of new buildings for self-catering facilities. There is no direct allowance for staff accommodation. Policy H14 (Staff Accommodation) states that where there is a proven need for such accommodation it may be supported. In exceptional circumstances where it is required as a place of work it may be outside the Built Up Area, but it should be provided through the conversion of existing buildings or temporary buildings, which can be removed when the need for staff accommodation no longer exists. In exceptional circumstances new buildings may be considered. It is not considered that an adequate case has been put forward to demonstrate an essential need for this quantity of staff accommodation on this site. The third phase includes the conversion of three staff units to A-H Housing, and the relocation of gym facilities into the tennis centre. The latter is not considered unacceptable, as it replaces one leisure facility with another. It is likely that the gym will be used more intensively than a tennis court, but the traffic generation likely, given the current levels of traffic generation and traffic in the area, are not considered so great as to justify the refusal of permission. Policy C6 does allow for the creation of residential units by the conversion of existing buildings. However, in this case the creation of three open market units would be at the expense of three staff units, which are then proposed to be replaced elsewhere on the site in new buildings. The net result therefore is the construction of new development to create A-H Housing. This is clearly contrary to the policies of the relevant plans. The fourth phase includes the replacement of the existing gym and staff accommodation, with new self-catering. This involves the construction of new buildings and facilities, both for self-catering facilities and elsewhere on the site for the replacement of existing staff accommodation. The same concerns arise as was the case for the second phase. The final fifth phase is the conversion of the Alamo building currently part used by the green keeper, to create one self-catering unit. The policies allow for conversion of buildings including the creation of self-catering units. This is a Registered Building, and the details of this will need to be very carefully considered. In principle, the conversion may be acceptable. This does not however imply that the Department should automatically allow for replacement of the green keeper’s facilities by approving the new compound (Phase 1). Taking all of these issues into account, the Department’s view is that the case for the construction of new staff accommodation has not been adequately made. In addition, a decision has to be made whether it is appropriate to allow for a relatively considerable increase in the number of self-catering lodges on the site, given the policy considerations noted above. In addition, the Department remains to be convinced that the construction of a new green keeper’s compound on land where there is currently no development is acceptable. The Department’s overall conclusion is that the amount of new construction proposed fails to adequately take into account the presumptions against development in the area and the fact that the site lies within the Countryside Zone, and in part, the Zone of Outstanding Character, rather than the Built Up Area. Greater effort should be made to re-use existing buildings and areas where buildings currently exist where these are no longer of practical use and need to be replaced. The Department is not yet convinced of the merits of Phase A – the greenkeepers shed. Some development may be acceptable within the area to the east of the existing self catering chalets shown as Phase B as this is surrounded by development and not visible from the bay. Within Phase C the new a-h units in the third phase are not acceptable if these lead to a need to build new staff accommodation elsewhere. The use of part of the tennis court building for the gym is acceptable. Some redevelopment of existing buildings in the area shown as Phase D may be acceptable as may the conversion of the Alamo (Phase E). Land Use Implications See Policy Considerations above. Size, Scale and Siting See Policy Considerations above. This is an application for Outline Planning Permission and no details have been submitted of the design of the buildings. Design and Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above Impact on Neighbours As set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the applicant’s Design Statement, consideration has been taken of the impact on adjoining properties. In addition landscaping is proposed in various areas. It is not considered that the development will so significantly change the way the site is used, or leads to such problems of noise or traffic generation that would cause an impact on neighbours which would require any application to be refused in principle. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The site enjoys adequate access, and the proposal suggests that adequate car parking will be provided. The Department considers that the increase in traffic generation proposed would not be so significant as to justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Foul Sewage Disposal Soakaways are proposed for surface water. All new accommodation will use mains water and mains drains, and the wash bay for the green keeper is also proposed to run to the mains. Landscaping issues The applicant has clearly thought about the possibility of additional landscaping to help any development assimilate into the landscape. This would need to be detailed as part of any subsequent application if the master plan were to be accepted. Other Material Considerations The scale of development proposed would require a Percentage for Art feature to be incorporated. The applicant has stated that this will be met. It is anticipated that any waste would be minimal and is proposed to be re-used on site as far as possible. It is not anticipated that material will need to be imported for landscaping or any other earthworks.

Officer Recommendation	That the applicant be given the opportunity to amend the master plan, providing further information with regard to the need for staff accommodation, to reduce the quantity of new construction to ensure that as far as possible, any new development is on existing developed areas of the site.

Conditions/ Reasons	Not appropriate at this stage.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Environmental Impact Assessment Non-Technical Summary Design Statement All consultation responses All letters of representation All responses from the Architect.

Endorsed by:

Date:

12 November 2010