Policy Considerations As noted above, the application was submitted, assessed and a permit issued under the 2002 Island Plan. On the 2002 Plan the site lay within the Green Zone wherein Policy C5 of the Island Plan set a presumption against development. The policy did however specifically state that not all forms of development are prohibited, and listed domestic extensions as potentially acceptable development, but only where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the zone. In all cases, the appropriate test as to whether a development proposal would be permitted was its impact on the visually sensitive character of this zone, and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the plan. The site also lay within the area covered by the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework and Policies SO10 and SO15 were particularly relevant. The framework document aims to control development in this area in the interests of retaining its special character. Policy SO10 stated that house extensions may in principle be appropriate development provided they do not adversely affect the unique character of the bay. Policy SO15 related specifically to house extensions and states that they would only be permitted where they do not:- - Detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring buildings;
- dominate the original building where it is of architectural, historic or vernacular merit;
- create a separate dwelling or an annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling;
- cause highway safety or parking problems.
Reference has also been made to Policies SO12 and SO16. Policy SO12 (Control of Development) was a general policy which suggests that all applications for development should include information on the formal layout of the development site, including views into and out of and open spaces, details of the scale, height and massing of the development and existing buildings to which it relates, details of elevational designs and to the nature and quality of materials. These are included in this application. The policy also noted that applications for development which could have significant landscape or visual impact, or effect the setting or important views into or out of the special area, must be supported by detailed, landscape and visual impact assessment. This application is for the refurbishment, remodelling and extension of an existing residential property, many of which have been approved within the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework Area. It is considered that the information submitted to assess the application in regard of its impact on the character of the area, is adequate. The policy continued to note that where the demolition or partial demolition of existing buildings is proposed, this should not involve the demolition of structures which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance or historic interest of the bay. This is not considered to be the case here. Policy SO16 (Replacement Dwellings) related specifically to replacement dwellings. Although this building is proposed to be remodelled and extended it is not to be demolished and replaced. It is not considered therefore that the requirements of this policy are directly relevant. Its key aim however is to ensure that any development is appropriate to the character of the area, and this is covered by the other policies discussed above. The requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design) are also relevant, and any development must be sympathetic to its context, compatible with the design of the existing building, or achieve a high standard of design in its own right, and respect the amenities of adjacent properties, particularly by avoiding unacceptable levels of overlooking or overbearing impact. On the 2011 Island Plan Map the site is in the Coastal National Park. Policy NE6 sets the strongest presumption against development in order to protect the character of the Park. The Plan accepts however that there are existing buildings and uses within the Park and that there are opportunities to improve existing buildings and the Park. Specific potential exceptions are listed including house extensions. Exceptions will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that “extensions to existing residential buildings will not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area, and where their design is appropriate relative to existing buildings and their context”. Policy GD7 requires a high quality of design, appropriate scale, form and mass, suitable materials, colours and design, and respect for landscape character. Policy GD1 reiterates the requirement to avoid serious harm to the natural environment and that development must not have an ureasonable impact on the character of the coast or countryside (including the National Park), and does not cause serious harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties. Policy LWM2 focuses on foul sewerage and sets a clear presumption in favour of mains sewerage. In exceptional circumstances however alternatives, including existing septic tanks, new tight tanks and private treatment works, may be acceptable. Such developments include extensions and alterations to existing residential properties. Land Use Implications There is no change in land use other than the required reduction in the size of the domestic curtilage, to allow greater control over this part of the landscape in the long term. Size, Scale and Siting The existing building is two storeys at the front, but as the land rises steeply towards the rear (east) the rear of the property is only single storey. At the rear of the main two storey element of the house is an existing single storey garage building. The proposal includes the remodelling of the front of the building, removing the existing pitched roof and replacing it with a flat roof. The existing white render would be clad in timber. The height of this part of the building would therefore be lower than the existing building, and by the use of timber in place of white render, the first floor of the building would be less prominent in the landscape. In addition to this, an extension is proposed at the rear of the building at right angles to the front section. This is two storeys in height, and as the rear of the site is higher than the front, the upper floor will appear one floor higher than the existing building. To the side of this a single garage is also proposed. A mixture of cedar timber cladding and granite is used throughout with powder coated or anodised aluminium windows. As in the case of the previous, refused application, the proposals do involve an increase in the size and floor area of the proposed building, not at the front, but at the rear. The rear extension is also ultimately higher than the existing building – by 1.107m as shown. There is no statistical limit or allowance for increases in the size or height of residential properties. The impact of this on the landscape and adjacent properties is a matter of judgement. The previous application included a two storey wing running along the eastern side of the existing parking area. The combined mass and impact of the proposals was considered unacceptable by the Planning Applications Panel. This new application therefore does not include a two storey wing running along the eastern side of the existing parking area. Rather than an U-shaped layout, the habitable area of the proposed building, as extended, would now be an L-shape. This reduces the apparent scale of the building when viewed from the west. Although the rear perpendicular wing is higher than the existing building, as it is set back, and due to the use of natural materials, it is considered that it would not appear unacceptably intrusive. In addition to this extension a single storey garage wing is proposed. This will be largely hidden from longer views as it will sit behind the existing building. The acceptability of the flat roof design is again a subjective issue. The Department Architect has been consulted and considered that the style of the building was acceptable. It is a contemporary approach using natural materials. There is no set character to the buildings in the area, and it is not considered unreasonable to pursue a contemporary approach in this case. The question of whether this proposed domestic extension would (a) ‘unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality’ of the area (under policy C5 of the former 2002 Island Plan); or, (b) not ‘cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area’ … and is of a design ‘that is appropriate relative to the existing building and its context’ (under policy NE6 of the current 2011 Island Plan); or, (c) not adversely affect the unique landscape character of St. Ouen’s Bay (under the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework) involves the exercise of a planning judgement. The Department’s conclusion is that in its amended form, the proposed development by its incorporation of a flat roof, setbacks, reduced east wing, and in particular the use of natural materials, will achieve a development which is not out of place in the area, and will to a large extent merge into the natural backdrop of the site when viewed from the west. It is not considered that it will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape or the character of the area. Design and Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above. Impact on Neighbours As in the previous application, concerns have been raised with regard to potential overlooking of adjacent properties. The occupier of the neighbouring property to the south has raised no objection to overlooking provided the existing boundary hedge is retained. The occupier of the property to the north is concerned however that the proposal will have an overbearing impact upon their property, and also result in overlooking, something which was allegedly specifically designed out when the houses were constructed. The Planning Applications Panel did not however refuse the previous application on the basis of potential overlooking. In addition, the applicant has attempted to address any overlooking issues towards the north by including a balcony screen to the top floor balcony, and minimising the number of first floor north facing windows. There are 4 at the first floor, 3 to a corridor, 1 to a bedroom. That to the bedroom is angled to face towards the west rather than the north. The others the Department recommends should be obscurely glazed. Given this, the distance of these windows from the adjacent property, and that that property already has windows looking towards the application site, it is not considered that the application could be refused on the grounds of unreasonable levels of overlooking. Access, Car Parking and Highway Considerations No changes to the proposed access are envisaged, and it is not considered that the increase in size of the building would generate significant amounts of traffic. More than adequate car parking is available within the application site. Foul Sewage Disposal The Department seeks to avoid any increase in development which will generate additional drainage, where this relies on the use of a septic tank and soakaway. In the absence of mains drains, and with a proposed increase in the number of bedrooms, it has been normal practice to require a tight tank if the application was considered acceptable in all other respects. In this case 3 bedrooms are shown as existing. The proposed drawings show these used as an office, gym and pool lounge, and 4 rooms are labelled as bedrooms. A Condition was therefore recommended, should Permission be granted, that a tight tank be required. This will ensure that any risk of ground water pollution is minimised The disposal of sewerage to a tight tank was not contrary to Policy NR2 of the 2002 Island Plan. Policy LWM2 of the 2011 Plan allows for development, including house alterations and extensions, on a tight tank in exceptional circumstances where other alternatives are not realistically achievable. In this case mains drains are not locally available. The site currently disposes of sewerage to a septic tank and soakaway. The applicant is proposing to split output between that existing septic tank and soakaway and the proposed tight tank. This is likely to reduce the load to the septic tank and soakaway and hence potential pollution therefrom. It also means that not all of the site's waste will go to the new tight tank and so the tight tank will not need emptying as often as it would if the whole house was dependent upon it. The latest drawings show a proposed position for the Tight Tank. As required under the Jersey Building Bye Laws, this is down slope from the property and in excess of 7m from any habitable parts of a building and within 30m of a vehicle access. Although there are no requirements under the Bye-Laws for tight tanks to be located away from boreholes, the applicant’s statement in support of the proposed drainage confirms that the tight tank can be sited so that it is at least 10 metres away from the nearest neighbour’s borehole. Reference has been made to various areas of guidance. The Director of Building Control has been consulted on the application and is content that the proposals satisfy the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. The approved technical guidance which has been published in support of the Building Bye-Law requirements does not set a specific distance required between tight tanks and boreholes but states that cesspools must be constructed and sited so as not to be prejudicial to health, or a nuisance or adversely affect water sources. In terms of not affecting water sources, this is achieved by the very design of a tight tank system which must be water tight. There is also a requirement for an alarm to be fitted so as to ensure that tanks are emptied before they become full. It has been alleged that 10 or up to 16 people would occupy the property. This is based on an assumption that some of the rooms facing the garden will be used as bedrooms although they are not shown to be used as such, and that these rooms and the labelled bedrooms would each be occupied by 2 people. The Minister should make a reasonable assessment of the likely occupancy of this property which would not be unique in the number and nature of rooms which it accommodates. The department’s view is that it is not realistic or reasonable to assume that it will be occupied by this number of people. Landscaping Issues The area of the site where the development is proposed does not enjoy any particular landscaping features. A condition is recommended to reduce the size of the rear domestic curtilage, which would give greater control over this area in the long term. The proposed extension’s small incursion into the existing slope is not considered to have any significant impact. Other Material Considerations Reference has been made in representations to potential noise during construction. It is not considered that disturbance during this type of relatively modest construction is a reasonable grounds for refusing Planning Permission. It has also been suggested that a scaffold profile should be erected and that a landscape/visual impact assessment should be submitted. The information submitted is considered adequate for the scale of proposals. It is extremely rare for the Department or the Planning Applications Panel to require the construction of a scaffold profile. The Panel has however twice visited the site and seen measuring poles indication the height and position of the proposed 2 storey extension. Reference has also been made to two recent third party appeal decisions. In the case of Steenson, the Court found that the development would, contrary to the view of the Department, have a detrimental impact upon the character of the Green Zone and the amenities of neighbouring properties, and suggested that the presumption against development had not been adequately taken into account in the Department’s report. The report for this application however clearly sets out the presumption against development in the former Green Zone and the Coastal National Park, but also the allowances of the relevant policies for some residential extensions in this area as a legitimate part of those policies. The Department does not consider in this case that the impact on the character of the area is unacceptable. It is a matter of judgement whether the scale and nature of the extensions is appropriate. The Department understands the differing view of those who have made representations, and recommended that the Panel undertake a site visit to fully assess the impact of the development, as was suggested in the case of Dunn -v- Planning and Environment. Reference has also been made to the case at St. Ouen’s Manor where it was considered that the Department had tried to mediate between an applicant and objector. In the case of this report for Le Vouest therefore the report simply seeks to set out what the Department believes are the key relevant issues and to make a recommendation including relevant conditions, on the basis of the merits of the scheme and those relevant issues. The application has been amended to address specific criticisms raised by objectors with regard to the Powerpoint presentation and the location of the tight tank. |