The application proposes the conversion of an existing garden store into a two-bed dwelling. It was refused on 29 May 2007, for the three reasons set out above. The original Planning Officer Assessment Sheet is enclosed. Initially, in submitting the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant has amended the application so that it is served by a tight tank and not a septic tank / soakaway. The proposal will therefore accord with Policy NR2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 and the third reason for refusal no longer applies. The agent also submits a case seeking to demonstrate that the proposed development is compliant with the relevant policy framework and therefore should be granted permission. This submission is enclosed with this Report. In responding to the submitted case there are various considerations which are worth emphasising. PLANNING HISTORY - Application reference 4626/J sought permission to construct an implement storage shed to south east of site, and was refused on 27th August 1996, as:
“The proposal is contrary to the approved Island Plan policy for the Green Zone in which there is a presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose.” - Application reference PB/1997/1318 also sought to construct a new implement store to the south east of the site, and was approved on 12 August 1997.
This permission was subject to a condition setting out that the building shall only be used as a domestic store for Millemont, and not for any commercial, industrial or business purpose. - Application reference PB/1998/1772 sought permission to construct an extension to the existing implement shed, and was refused on 11th September 1998, as:
”The proposed extension would be contrary to the Island Plan policy for the Green Zone, in which there is a presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose.” - Application reference PB/1999/1461 again sought permission to construct an extension to the existing implement shed, and was approved on 15 July 1999.
- Application reference PB/2003/0099 also sought permission for an extension to the existing shed, and was approved on 27 February 2003.
This permission was again subject to a condition requiring that the store shall only be used for domestic purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and not for any industrial, commercial or business use (to ensure that the use of the store does not, by reason of any other activity, prejudice the amenities of the area).
In 1999 the Committee raised concerns about the scale of the proposed extension to the building in this location. The case file also records that the applicant formed a particular case for the garden implement shed, being desperate for a tool store, and indeed itemising all the garden equipment it was necessary to hold. In considering the history of the structure now on the site, through the applications recorded above, it is evident that the building was granted as a clear exception to the usual policy requirements, based on a particular personal need. This “exceptional” position is reinforced by the conditions attached to the previous permissions. In this regard it is worthwhile emphasising that when conditions are attached to permits they should be necessary. In considering whether a condition is necessary, the question to be asked is: Would the application have to be refused if the condition was not imposed? Following this guidance, the logical answer is that the implement store would never have been approved without the condition which requires its use to be incidental to the main house. CONTENT OF POLICY C6 As set out in the Jersey Island Plan 2002, the property lies within the Countryside Zone, where Policy C6 will apply. This Policy establishes “a high level of protection” and “a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose”. Policy C6 also acknowledges that it would be unreasonable to preclude all forms of new development, and so it provides a list of development which may be permitted as possible exceptions to the usual policy approach, where their scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm, the character and scenic quality of the countryside. One of the possible exceptions specified within Policy C6 (criteria iii) is the “conversion of existing buildings to appropriate and non-intrusive residential uses” This Policy is also subject to a further requirement, that “in all cases the appropriate tests as to whether a development proposal will be permitted will be its impact on the character of the zone and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the Plan. Wherever possible, new buildings should be sited next to existing ones or within an existing group of buildings” Within the RFR the applicant contends that as there is already a building within a domestic curtilage then can be no greater impact on the landscape than the current situation, so it’s use for residential purposes is ‘sustainable’. This approach is an over-simplification which fails to address the overall implications of the proposal, which is to deliver a second curtilage and a second residential unit in the Countryside Zone. As has been seen in relation to the current house, a residential unit comes with a package including the curtilage and the other forms of associated development and domestication. The application therefore proposes to significantly increase the residential capacity of the site. Overall, this form of proposal has a negative impact on the character of the Countryside Zone and does not represent a sustainable form of development. The applicant has suggested that the usual permitted development rights could be removed by condition attached to any permit, and so exert greater control over the curtilage. This could be construed as an acknowledgement that the creation of a second curtilage would indeed change the character of the land and so would need to be managed. It should also be noted that the removal of permitted development rights does not preclude an applicant from making future application for associated domestic works (which may otherwise not have been necessary). The implications of such a scenario can be seen by reference to the application which is now under consideration – a specific permission was granted on the basis of a particular exceptional case, but this has not prevented the same applicant from now seeking a form of development which would have originally been completely unacceptable. These future pressures could include a garage etc for the new dwelling, and also another garden implement shed for the balance of Millemont, to replace that lost by this application – which itself was to meet an identified need (which still exists). Such a new implement store could then be followed by a further application to change its use into another domestic unit (specifically echoing the planning history in this RFR). It is further not acceptable to claim that just because the building is “barely visible” from the road that there will be no impact on the character of the Countryside Zone. It is accepted that the views of the structure from the road are limited, however, there are other views of the site from public and private land, and it is a matter of fact that the residential unit, with associated curtilage etc, would exist and (even at present) it is poorly assimilated into the landscape. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Department has no record of compliance with landscape conditions as set out on PB/1999/1461. Returning to the assessment required by Policy C6, it is evident that the proposed residential unit is not “appropriate and non-intrusive” (neither can this be adequately controlled) and the development of a second residential unit within the Countryside Zone is not a sustainable form of development. It therefore fails the assessment required by Policy C6. OTHER RECENT CASES In the RFR the applicant makes reference to four “comparable cases” where permission was granted for the conversion of an ancillary domestic structure to a new residential unit. At the outset, it should be stressed that there is no formal concept of precedent in the planning system – it is fundamental that each application is considered on its own merits and in accordance with Statute, being Article 19 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Within this context, other cases may be a “material consideration” which may, or may not, be of sufficient weight to merit overriding the provisions of the Island Plan. The referenced cases are: P/2003/0392 – Les Pallieres, St Ouen This application sought to convert an existing garage to a dwelling house, and construct a new replacement garage in the Green Zone. The application was approved on 24 September 2003 following an RFR – when the replacement garage was deleted from the scheme. This short note (and the information submitted by the applicant in the RFR) does not allow sufficient consideration of the complexities of the site and its history. The garage to be converted was granted as an exception (to house a classic car collection) and followed 5 refused applications (over 25-years) which all sought permission to build a new dwelling on the site. The garage was then sold separately to a new owner, who sought its conversion to a new dwelling. This then instigated a process of 5 further applications / RFR’s, to convert it to a house. This process even included the applicant still seeking the replacement garage after the Committee secured its deletion from the scheme. The application history finally ended in August 2006, following a series of correspondence and Enforcement Action regarding the drainage of the site. This is an example of the complexity and implications of such exceptional applications, and as such it is of limited weight as a material consideration. P/2003/1601 - Les Catieaux, Trinity This application was for the creation of a three-bed residential unit within the Countryside Zone, following the conversion of a vehicular garage. The application represented the culmination of a series of applications, from the approval of a 4-car garage in January 2001, its extension to a 6-car garage in February 2002, a new access and driveway in January 2003, and the conversion of the roofspace to a 1-bed flat in July 2003. There has also been a subsequent application for the provision of a new garage (to replace that ‘lost’ by the conversion), and other extensions, which was refused in July 2004 due to the conflict with Policy C6 of the Island Plan. This is a classic example of incremental consents, secured over a relatively short period, to deliver a final form of development which would (as an individual application) be totally contrary to established policy. As a material consideration it could be argued that this application weighs in favour of up-holding the decision in the current RFR, as the illustrated situation at Les Catieaux serves as a practical example situation set out above in relation to the current proposals. P/2005/1496 – Lisburn, St Brelade This application was for the replacement of an existing water company plant building to a 1-bed dwelling. The site is within the Built-Up Area, where there is a totally different policy context than the subject application. Indeed, under Policy H8 there is a presumption in favour of new development (change of use will “normally be permitted”) whilst under Policy C6, there is a” general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purposes”. This application is therefore not a relevant material consideration. P/2005/0610 – Mon Desir, St Mary This application was for the conversion of outbuildings to a 3-bed dwelling, within the Countryside Zone, and was granted permission in July 2005. The pertinent point to be drawn out of this application is that the building in question pre-dated planning controls and was a one-off structure (ie. unrelated to the situation at the subject site). There is also an indication within the planning history that it was in commercial use, rather than being an ancillary domestic outbuilding. The baseline context of this application is fundamentally different to the subject proposal, therefore it is of very limited weight as a material consideration. SUITABILITY OF THE BUILDING In considering the original application, the form of the building was a key consideration, in particular, that if the proposal was approved it would result in a timber clad, corrugated steel-roofed dwelling within the Countryside Zone. In submitting the RFR the applicant has confirmed that they believe the building is capable of conversion, as internally it is of blockwork construction. Their conversion would then involve the creation of new openings and the dry-lining of the existing blockwork. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to remove the timber cladding and render the structure, to create a more domestic building. It is presumed the same approach would be taken to dealing with the roof. This conclusion to the design process would be symptomatic of the general approach to the application, in that it was specifically and exceptionally approved as a garden implement store and that architecture of the building reflected that “garden” use. However, it seems to have been constructed in a form which would, in theory, allow for ready conversion to a dwelling. In practice the conversion process would involve more significant works then the applicant has suggested. If the primary frontage is considered, then over 50% of the elevation would need to be altered to facilitate the conversion, just by reference to sealing the present openings with blockwork, and creating the new openings. The same is true for the north elevation, where only 1.9m of the current 6m would remain unaltered. The position regarding conversion is therefore based on “fact and degree”. It is a matter of fact that the building could be converted, however, given the nature of the building at present, and the degree of work proposed (completely remodel the elevations, dry-line the entire building and possibly replacing the roof and recladding the whole structure), it is considered that the structure is not suitable for conversion. | 
gov.je