Refusal of planning application of Field 263A Grouville

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (23.08.06) to refuse the planning application for Field 263A Grouville.

Subject:	F. 263A, Grouville – construction of two dwellings Referred to Minister by Planning Applications Panel (PAP)
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0119	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Oral (plus department report to PAP)	Person Giving Report (if oral):		P. Thorne and A. Townsend
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?		Report File ref:		P/2005/1069
Written Report Title:	Officer Panel Report	Written report – Author:		A. Townsend
Decision: In line with the Delegation Agreement, whereby applications which the PAP is minded to decide against the officer advice are referred to the Minister, the Minister decided to refuse the application.
Reason(s) for decision: The proposed development is designated as Important Open Space on the Island Proposals Map in the 2002 Island Plan, in which there is a presumptions against development, and is therefore contrary to the policy on development in that area
Action required: Applicant and objectors to notified of the decision in writing by AT
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 23 July 2006

Refusal of planning application of Field 263A Grouville

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.)

Officer Committee Report

Presentation to be made by objectors and applicant

Application Number

P/2005/1069

Site Address	Fields 263A, La Rue de la Haye du Puits, Grouville.

Applicant	Mr P McCarthy

Description	Construct 2 No. dormer cottages.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	17/06/2005

Zones	Important Open Space

Policies

G2 –General Development Considerations

G3 - Quality of Design

BE8 - Important Open Space

H8 - Housing Development in the Built Up Area

Designated Playing Fields

Reason for Referral

Departure from Island Plan

Level and degree of objections

Summary/

Conclusion

Within designated Important Open Spaces, (IOS), new dwellings will not normally be allowed. The history of this site is however unusual for the reasons explained in the report, the site having been designated by The States as School Playing Fields in 2002. Previous Committees have in principle accepted some residential development on this site, and the owner therefore has a "legitimate expectation" of some form of development, notwithstanding the designation of the site and that its designation was re-affirmed by The States in 2005 when the previous committee sought to have its IOS status removed.

The previous application on this site, P/2004/1944, was refused not on grounds of the IOS, but because of access and design issues. These have now been resolved.

Given the history of the site and that the previous reasons for refusal have been addressed, there are no reasonable grounds for refusal.

Recommendation

Approve

Site Description	The site is the northern part of Field 263a. It has no road frontage, having residential development to its north and east, and Grouville School to the south. To the west is Field 263, now compulsorily purchased by The States to extend the school playing fields and provide a new road. The southern part of Field 263a which is in the same ownership as the northern part, is not included in this application. It is anticipated that this will also be used by the school in future, as explained in the supporting documents.

Relevant Planning History	Prior to the designation of the site as School Playing Fields and the adoption of the Island Plan, both in 2002, residential development has been refused on this site. Application P/1994/1469 was refused on the basis of loss of agricultural land, inappropriate development in the Sensitive Landscape Area of the Agricultural Priority Zone, and backland development detrimental to the amenities of neighbours. More recently however, when pursuing purchase of Field 263a, previous committees have conceded the principle of some development on this site, as is explained in the supporting documents. Since then 2 applications have been received, prior to the current application before the Panel today. The first, P/2004/1069, proposed 3 dormer dwellings, but in the light of concerns raised by objectors and the department, was withdrawn. The second, P/2004/1944, proposed 2 dwellings, and as noted in the supporting documents, was the subject of a site visit by the Planning Sub Committee, and subsequent consideration by the Environment and Public Services Committee. That application was refused, but not on the grounds of the Important Open Space designation, given the previous indication given that some development may be acceptable. The formal notice of refusal is attached as background paper, but the 2 refusal reasons may be summarised as access and the scale and design of the buildings. The question of access has since been conceded, as a previous permission reliant upon this access, required visibility splays to be achieved and maintained. These are considered adequate by Public Services, (now Transport and Technical Services), to accommodate the 2 additional houses now proposed. This latest application now before the Panel includes changes to the buildings proposed to address the second reason for refusal.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Agricultural Field.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Residential.

Consultations	PSD(Highways) in their letter dated 30 June 2005 raise no objections based on their previous advice sent by email on 15 March 2005 in relation to the previous application. PSD(Drainage) in their letter dated 20 June 2005 state that no comments are required at this stage. These consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	Several objections have been received, as was also the case for the previous application. When considering that previous application the Vice President Deputy Dorey undertook that objectors would be allowed to address the Committee when the anticipated subsequent application was considered. As that application is now to be considered, the objectors and the applicant have been invited to attend. Four letters of objection have been received, 2 with multiple signatures, on grounds including:- - The Panel is not bound by permissions given in principle. - The States in 2005 considered that the site should be maintained as part of the Important Open Space. - This site has not been designated for development having been within the Sensitive Landscape Area of The Agricultural Priority Zone under the 1987 Island Plan, and then Important Open Space under the 2002 Island Plan. - Access is dangerous, with poor visibility, and cars approaching from the left (north west) often on the wrong side of the road when vehicles are parked along the road. - Previous refusals. - Neighbours expected this site to be protected from development due to its designation and should not be penalised by the development aspirations of the applicant or a poor decision of a previous committee. All letters of representation are attached as background papers.

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations (What are the presumptions) G2 (General Development Considerations), G3 (Quality of Design), BE8 (Important Open Space) and H8 (Housing Development in the Built Up Area). Land Use Implications The proposals will clearly change the use and appearance of this site. Detailed issues regarding access, design etc are discussed under the relevant headings to follow. The history of the site and the principle of any development is still a matter of contention. In July 2005 a projet was taken to the States to have the site removed from the designated Public Open Space given its background and that previous Committees had condoned the principle of some development of the site. The relevant history is set out in that projet and the chronology up to May 2005, both of which are attached. The States decided to maintain the site as part of the Important Open Space. The department has sought legal advice on whether, in the light of this, the Panel is obliged to grant permission as its predecessors had condoned the principle of some development. The advice received is that the applicant has a "legitimate expectation" of development given the previous Committees' decisions, and therefore that if an appeal is made, that the Court is likely to find in favour of the applicant. Some letters of objection have asked whether the neighbours should equally have a legitimate expectation that the site would be protected from development given its designation. It is indeed fair and correct to say that decisions should be made in accordance with the Island Plan. However, all decisions must take into account all material planning considerations, which in this case includes the history of this site. Moreover, policy BE8 states that development will not normally be allowed, but does not set a complete embargo upon development. The owner of site however has received specific advice from previous Committees upon which he may expect to rely. Size, Scale & Siting The previous refusal was in part based on the mass and design of the houses. In the new scheme, Unit 2's garage has been detached, allowing both units to move further from their neighbours, particularly Unit 1, (that closest to existing houses), which is moved south west and has a larger space to the east boundary. The criticised asymmetrical gables and high rear eaves have been omitted and the dormers reduced in size. The height of the houses, floor to ridge is marginally reduced from 7.4m to 7.23m. Their ridges are stated as 0.41m higher than the nearest house to the north east, and although their ridge height is shown to match that of the houses to the immediate north, their height, floor to ridge, is greater. The houses are however improved in their appearance from the refused scheme, and are not overly large, poorly proportioned or in design terms out of character with the mix of houses in the area. It is not therefore considered that refusal could be justified on grounds of design or size. Design & Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above. No materials are stated on the elevation drawings. It is anticipated that the walls will be in render which is widely used on other properties in the immediate vicinity. It is recommended that the roofs be in slates - the predominant material in the area and less imposing than red pantiles. Impact on Neighbours As in the previous scheme, the buildings are positioned to minimise their impact on adjacent houses. Those relationships were not considered unacceptable. As before, House 1, that closest to other houses, has only one bedroom window at first floor facing north/north west, the others being to the landing and a bathroom. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations As noted above, and in the attached minutes, the access has been resolved. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping issues As before it is considered that hedges should form the south, east and west boundaries and a condition is proposed to this effect. Other Material Considerations None

Recommendation	Approve

Conditions/ Reasons	1. Hedges of indigenous species to be planted along the south and east and west boundaries. 2. Roofs to be in slate. 3. Remove permitted development rights to control future development on the site.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan. All letters of objection. Consultation responses from PSD Highways and Drainage. Project 77/2005 re designation of Important Open Space. Chronology to May 2005. Refusal Notice for P/2004/1944 Committee Minutes:- - 6 January 2000 - 28 September 2000 - 18 January 2001 - 2 August 2001 - 18 April 2002 - 20 June 2002 - 4 July 2002 - 17 July 2003 - 9 October 2003 - 22 January 2004 - 20 May 2004 - 12 August 2004 - 9 September 2004 - 1 December 2004 - 20 January 2005 - 17 March 2005 - 26 May 2005

Endorsed by:

Date:

Update to Officer Committee Report

Presentation to be made by Deputy Labey, Constable Murphy, Mr Hodge (on behalf of objectors), and applicant Mr McCarthy

Application Number

P/2005/1069

Site Address	Fields 263A, La Rue de la Haye du Puits, Grouville.

Applicant	Mr P McCarthy

Description	Construct 2 No. dormer cottages.

Update

This item was deferred from the previous meeting of the Panel at the request of the Constable – fax of 19 July attached.

For clarification, the Parish were not consulted on the application as it was understood that the site exits onto a road under the control of Transport and Technical Services, (Public Services at the time the application was submitted), not the Parish.

The Department now sends copies of all advertised applications to the relevant Parish for their use and information. This was not however the case at the time this application was submitted last year. Therefore, as this procedure was not in place at the time, and the Parish were not the Highways Authority, the Parish would not have been consulted or sent a copy of the application drawings.

The applicant, the objectors, Deputy Labey and the Constable, have all asked to be able to speak at the meeting.

The report prepared for the previous meeting is attached. No further papers have been received by the Case Officer.

Background Papers:

Officer Committee Report 14 July 2006

Fax from Constable of Grouville 19 July 2006

Endorsed by:

Date: