BACKGROUND The property is currently in residential use. It is a two storey building, with the ground floor being a former workshop / garage, and the first floor having 2 double bedrooms, living room, kitchen and bathroom. The proposal envisages sub-dividing the property to create 2 residential units. This involves reconfiguring the building internally to create an extra floor, remodelling the elevations and a new roof with dormer windows to second floor main elevation. The ground floors would contain a garage (1 car space per unit), the first floors have an open plan kitchen / lounge / diner, and the second floors contain bedrooms. The western unit would contain 2 bedrooms (4 person occupancy) and the eastern unit would contain 1 double bedroom and a study, (the study measures 8 sq m and could be used as a single bedroom – this could therefore be considered as 3 person unit). No amenity space exists on site at present, and none is provided in the proposed redevelopment. REASONS FOR REFUSAL The reason for refusal sets out that the scheme was considered to be unacceptable overdevelopment, as the building would provide insufficient amenity space and would be out of scale with the neighbouring properties, being contrary to Policy G2 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. These issues, including the case from the applicant, are revisited in turn below. INSUFFICIENT AMENITY SPACE In relation to the first issue of amenity space, the current situation is that the present property has a 4-person occupancy, and no amenity space. The application would deliver 7-person occupancy, and again no amenity space would be provided. Standards (as referenced in Policy H8 and set out within Planning Policy Note 6) require that each unit provides 50 sq m of amenity space and so there is a considerable deficit. In addition to the issue of quantity, the Standards also consider quality of provision and require that the amenity space is private and usable. In their Request for Reconsideration the applicant sets out that the property backs onto Springfield, where public open space is available, including a children’s play area. Additionally, the applicants also set out that plenty of recently constructed schemes in St Helier do not meet the required Standards for the provision of amenity space. In response, whilst the existing substandard situation is acknowledged, it is evident that: - there is a significant increase in overall occupancy, but no increase in provision of amenity space;
- it is not sufficient to exclusively rely on the use of Springfield. The land is not in the ownership of the applicant, it only offers restricted use (ie. it has defined opening hours) and is not private (ie. it is a public facility).
- no evidence is provided of new developments where substandard amenity space has been approved. It is entirely likely that such perceived cases could be situations where:
a. there has been no net increase in occupancy (in which case we may accept the status quo being maintained); or
b. the accommodation has not been family units, such as one-bed flats or studios, (in which case a lower Standard would apply); or
c. redevelopment related to a Registered Building (in which case the specific circumstances of the property may, on balance, mitigate against the rigid application of Standards).
Even if Standards have been relaxed elsewhere it is worthwhile clarifying that ‘precedent’ does not have a formal status in the determination of a planning application. Each application is assessed on its own merits, taking into account all material considerations. Applications which are contrary to the Island Plan will only be approved if there is sufficient justification for doing so. Given the content of this application, it is not considered that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to justify over-riding the usual Standards, set out through Policy H8 of the Island Plan, relating to the provision of adequate amenity space. OUT OF SCALE WITH NEIGHBOURS The applicant presented the scheme as a conversion of the existing property, however (as has been set out above) the works involve: - reconfiguring the interior to create an extra floor;
- remodelling the elevations; and
- a new roof with dormer windows to second floor main elevation.
For all practical purposes, given the extent of the works, this scheme is a demolition and new build, rather than a conversion. The existing property currently has very high ceilings, and the footprint already fills the entire site. Indeed, as the applicant sets out in his Request for Reconsideration, the proposal does not alter either the overall height or extend beyond the existing footprint. The works do however involve the remodelling of the main elevation, the insertion of dormer windows, and a change in the proportions of the remaining fenestration. The main elevation would therefore be altered to show a clear 2.5 storey frontage, when previously it was 2 storeys. In itself, this alteration may not necessarily present an issue in relation to the scale of development, but the property cannot be viewed in isolation and reference must be made to its context. The immediately adjacent properties, on either side of the subject site, are dormer bungalows (1.5 storeys), and the wider properties (Nos. 91 and 93) are actually single storey properties. All these properties (the balance of Nos. 81 to 93) are also Registered Buildings. It is within this context that the subject property is presently acknowledged as somewhat of an anomaly, and the proposed works, which will add to the vertical proportions, and increase the perceived height, would clearly be out of scale with the neighbouring properties. CONCLUSION It is acknowledged that the property has unique circumstances, particularly the ground floor workshop and lack of amenity space. During the progression of the application the Department considered several options for this site alongside the applicant and agent. The advice was that any intensification of the current level of use would be unacceptable. The application which is subject to this Request for Reconsideration clearly seeks to deliver a significant intensification of the use through altering the physical form of the building. Although a sub-standard situation may exist at present, the scheme introduces a further degradation, particularly in relation to the lack of amenity space and the perceived height of the building These issues come together to conclude that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a poor form of accommodation which should not be approved. This is considered unacceptable against the requirements of Jersey Island Plan 2002, and, specifically, is contrary to Policy G2(i), H8 (i) and H8(ii), which require compliance with residential Standards and that development should not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area. | 
gov.je