Reason for Refusal 1. The extension proposed, because of its location and impact would unreasonably impact on the character of the area and neighbouring uses, and would unreasonably impact on agricultural land, contrary to Policy G2 (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Island Plan 2002. Policy G2 requires that the proposal should not unreasonably impact on the character of the area. The character of the area is defined by the Countryside Character Appraisal (CCA) B2: St Clement. The CCA clearly identifies ‘further loss and degradation of the field boundaries and future loss of agricultural land to development’ as specific threats to the local character of St Clement. Advice from Policy and Projects section confirms that in view of the perception of the increasing suburbanisation of St Clement, the impact of ‘creeping urbanisation’ of whatever form requires careful consideration in terms of the cumulative impact of this on the character of the countryside. It is thus maintained that the extension will result in an unreasonable impact on the character of the area. Reason for Refusal 2. The extension proposed, because of its location and impact would be harmful to the character of this part of the Countryside Zone, contrary to Policy C6 of the Island Plan 2002. Policy C6 provides a presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose. It does allow for certain developments provided they do not detract from or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the area. These exceptions do not include garden extensions into agricultural fields. The agent, in his case for the proposal, sites five recent applications for domestic extensions into agricultural fields. However, all five cases have particular circumstances that do not reflect the proposed situation. In particular, two applications were approved to achieve a turning area for cars, in the interests of highway safety. In the case for another, the land was unusable due to severe gradient and unevenness, and was not visible from public view. However, in three of these cases, the approval was conditioned to remove exempted development rights, which protects the countryside character by ensuring no domestic paraphernalia such as sheds, fencing, garages, etc. is erected. Whilst the agent has stated that the owner is happy for this to apply to his land, the approval of the swimming pool defeats the purpose of removing these rights. Furthermore, the proposal includes landscape works within the extension area, which would result in the land appearing domestic and would not protect the appearance of the countryside character. It is considered that the dwelling already enjoys a large garden and that the proposal to extend into an agricultural field for the provision for a non-essential facility, that is, a swimming pool, is unjustified and will unreasonably harm the character of the countryside. Reason for Refusal 3. The proposed extension would result in the permanent loss of part of Field 245, contrary to Policy C13 of the Island Plan 2002. Policy C13 provides that there will be a presumption against the permanent loss of agricultural land for development or other purposes. Where exceptions are proposed, the nature of the proposed use and the impact on the viability of the agricultural holding will be taken into account. Whilst the comments from the Agriculture Department state that the extension would not affect the viability of the field, the extension still proposes a permanent loss of agricultural field, which is the substantive consideration. Boundary Change From the Department’s records, the domestic curtilage boundary for this property is the building line to the rear. Basically, this property was approved with a front garden only and no rear garden. The garden has already been extended unlawfully by approximately 700m2. The boundary line shown on the application form and on the Department’s mapping system show a position that has evolved over time, but has not been granted planning permission. It is conceded that the previous extension is longstanding, but nonetheless it is unauthorised. Rather than request the owner to re-instate the original boundary line, it is considered expedient in the circumstances to resolve the issue of the boundary line by seeking the inclusion of landscaping as a boundary treatment. This will prevent further encroachment into the agricultural field in the future. | 
gov.je