Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage & Maison du Roc, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville: Planning Application (P/2011/1221): Determination of the Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 25 September 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2014-0080			Application Number: P/2011/1221 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage & Maison du Roc, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville		Date of Decision Summary:		16 September 2014
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		n/a
Written Report Title :	P/2011/1221		Date of Written Report:		16 September 2014
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage & Maison du Roc, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville, Jersey, JE3 9FP Demolish existing dwellings. Remove existing extension and renovate existing tower. Construct 19 No. residential units of accommodation. Model Available. REVISED PLANS: Demolish existing dwellings. Renovate existing tower. Construct 17 No. residential units of accommodation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Further details received following Royal Court decision. Perspective drawings and heritage appraisal. REVISED PLANS: Alterations to Block A. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: Additional alterations to form and scale of gable to Block A.
Decision(s): At the Ministerial Meeting of 11th July 2014 the Minister received the Department report dated 1st July 2014 and heard public comment in relation to the subject planning application, and deferred his decision pending a site visit, when he wished to view a scaffold profile of part of the proposed Block A. The relevant site visit was undertaken on 21st July 2014, when the scaffold profile was observed. Following the visit the Minister confirmed he was not content with the scale and form of the gable of the proposed Block A as it projects to the roadside. His reasons for this related to : (1) the impact of the gable on the public view of Keppel Tower from the south, where it can currently be seen in conjunction with Seymour Cottage, as an important visual link, relevant to the historic setting of Seymour Cottage; and (2) the physical proximity, scale and form of the gable having an overbearing impacts on the rear amenity space of Prospect House, and so being harmful to the amenities of that property. The Minister then provided the applicant with the opportunity to reconsider the scale and form of the gable to proposed Block A, and address the identified points. Revised plans were received on 5th August 2014 and duly readvertised for a further period of public consultation. In response to the consultation period, eleven letters of objection have been received. Of these eleven letters, three are from the same address, one is from the Deputy of Grouville, and one is accompanied by a petition with 43 signatures. The applicant has submitted a letter in response to these objections, and this elicited two further letters. All this correspondence is attached, with the key issues raised being: the changes to the gable are small in the context of the rest of the scheme; the revised gable remains out of context with the area and is not vernacular; density remains too high and the character of the area remains compromised; traffic and highways concerns remain to be addressed; construction issues in relation to subsidence and tidal damage are not resolved; there are other Listed Buildings in the wider vicinity and the impacts on their setting have not been reviewed; in long views from the sea the scale of Block A and the rest of the development will be unfragmented; the benefits to Keppel Tower and its setting are not sufficient to over-ride the protection offered to Seymour Cottage and its setting; The development is outside the “margin of appreciation” within which the Minster could depart from policy; the whole process is not representative of neighbourhood engagement. In relation to other matters raised in the representations, the Department can now confirm that Policy GD2 of the 2011 Island Plan was deleted in the Revised Island Plan, adopted in July 2014. Therefore (other than in relation to Waste Management policies) the applicant is not required to provide a justification for the demolition of Maison Du Roc. A further consultation response from the Historic Environment Team (20 August 2014) has also been received. They re-state earlier comments and confirm that the width of the gable remains outside what could be considered as a vernacular response, and no changes have been made to the remainder of Block A to deal with the arising issues of scale and mass. The Minister confirmed he has considered the further revised plans, the consultation response and all the representations. He has also reconsidered the Department report as presented to his meeting of 11th July 2014 (attached). The Minister noted the proposals now keep the key visual connection between Seymour Cottage and Keppel Tower, so maintaining the link between these historic coastal structures. The Minister noted that this would be the case when travelling from the south (as the Tower would remain visible over the lower element of the roof line of the revised gable) and when travelling from the north (as, with the introduction of the proposed pavement, the existing gable of Seymour Cottage would have a greater prominence in the street). The Minister also noted that, from the site visit to review the scaffold profile, the visual break between Block A and Seymour Cottage, when seen in views from the sea, was appropriate to the character of the area, and did not adversely affect the architectural or historic setting of Seymour Cottage as a Listed Building. It was further observed from the site visit that the key issue in relation to Prospect House was the overbearing impact of the proposed gable of Block A in relation to the rear (primary) amenity space of that property. The Minister noted the revised plans now reduce the scale of the gable facing Prospect House to the same height as the existing garage structure and he also noted that the risk of overlooking is minimal given the physical relationship between Prospect House and the proposed development (in relation to the distances between the windows and gable-to-the-road orientation of Prospect House) so as to not result in any unreasonable impacts. Aside from Seymour Cottage, the Minister reviewed the impacts on the setting of the other Listed Buildings in the vicinity of the site (as noted in the Department Report, the Historic Environment consultation response, and the letters of representation). The Minister confirmed he is content that (as per the advice in March 2013 from the Historic Environment Team) any impacts will not be sufficient to affect their historic interest or character. The Minister has noted the position in Policy HE1 is that “Permission will not be granted for extensions, alterations and changes which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest or character of a Listed building or place and its setting.” The Minister also understands that this is one policy within the suite of Island Plan policies, and that the final determination will require a balanced conclusion, weighing potentially competing objectives across various policies. The Minister confirmed he has further reviewed the Royal Court Judgement in the case of Herold v Minister for Planning and Environment, which identified that the successful ground of appeal was the failure to consider the historic setting of Seymour Cottage, as required by Policy HE1, and then the failure to balance any impacts against other planning considerations within the application. In the context of all of the above, the Minister resolved to endorse the Department recommendation that the application be approved, subject to the conditions and subject to the prior completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement, as set out in the Department report heard at the 11th July Ministerial Meeting.
Reason(s) for Decision: The proposed development has been amended to address concerns raised and is considered to be acceptable having due regard to all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policies GD1, GD3, GD5, HE1, HE5, H6, BE4 and WM1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. In this case, having regard to the character and grain of the area, and the scale, form and architecture of the proposal, alongside the full package of works including to the Martello tower, the proposed development is regarded as acceptable because it is in the Built Up Area, in accord with the Spatial Strategy, does not harm the Shoreline Zone objectives, does not detract from the amenities of the area and provides enhancements to the urban form and historic environment. The impact on the setting of individual Listed Buildings has also been considered and found to be acceptable particularly when balanced across the impacts on all Listed Buildings, and other planning considerations within the application. In addition, the representations raised to the scheme have been assessed. It is considered that the proposal does not have an unreasonable impact on amenities of neighbours or the area generally. As such, a balanced assessment of the application concludes that it accords with the terms of the policies within the Jersey Island Plan 2011. The representations received regarding the impact on Seymour Cottage have been fully assessed. The Minister considers that the proposal would not adversely affect the historic interest of this Listed building or its setting. If a minor adverse impact upon this Grade 4 building was accepted this would be balanced by the significant positive benefits to the Grade 3 Keppel Tower.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage & Maison du Roc, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville: Planning Application (P/2011/1221): Determination of the Minister

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Department of the Environment

Report for Ministerial Meeting

(Site Visit)

1. Application Number

P/2011/1221

2. Site Address	Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage & Maison du Roc, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville, JE3 9FP.

3. Applicant	Sea View Investments Limited

4. Description	Demolish existing dwellings. Remove existing extension and renovate existing tower. Construct 19 No. residential units of accommodation. Model Available. REVISED PLANS: Demolish existing dwellings. Renovate existing tower. Construct 17 No. residential units of accommodation. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Further details received following Royal Court decision. Perspective drawings and heritage appraisal. REVISED PLANS: Alterations to Block A.

5. Type	Major Application

6. Date Validated	09/09/2011

7. Zones & Constraints	Built-Up Area Potential Listed Building Shoreline Zone Primary Route Network Eastern Cycle Route Corridor
Background	P/2011/1221 was submitted in September 2011 and presented to the Planning Application Panel on 1st March 2012, with a recommendation that permission be granted. The Panel vote was split (with 3 Members for and 3 Members against) and in such circumstances the application is referred to the Minister. The Minister considered the application at his public meeting of 20 April 2012 and expressed concerns about several elements relating to the proximity of Block D to the Tower and the 3rd floor of Block C. However, the Minister did not determine the application, and gave the applicant the opportunity to resolve these matters. The application was referred back to a public Ministerial Meeting in October 2012 when the amended application was approved, subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement, primarily to deal with off-site highways works. For completeness, the Department Reports for the previous public meetings have been included as background papers for this Report and much of the policy assessment within those Reports remain valid. Following completion of the Planning Obligation Agreement, the Decision Notice was issued, dated 31 July 2013. The decision was then challenged by a Third Party Appeal, heard in December 2013. The judgement of the Court is dated 16th January 2014 and is included with the background papers for this Report. The Appeal had two grounds (para 10 of the Judgement): First, that the Minister had failed to take account that the appellants property Seymour Cottage was a “potential Listed Building” which would be adversely affected by the development, particularly Block A, which by its mass and proximity to the boundary had an adverse effect on the setting of the cottage. Second, was that to approve the development was unreasonable, and inconsistent with the Island Plan as the increase in footprint, height and proximity of Block A would dwarf Seymour Cottage, prejudicing amenities of the property and its grounds. In relation to the first point, the Court found (para 30) that there was no evidence that the Minister considered the impact of the proposed development on Seymour Cottage, nor as to how he balanced that against the other planning considerations which affected this particular proposal. The Appeal therefore succeeded on this ground. Turning to the second ground, the Court noted (para 37) that had they been deciding the application then they would have refused the scheme as they considered the mass was out of context with the local environment and adversely affected the amenities of adjoining properties. However, the Court then record (para 38) that this is not the test and they have to allow the Minister a ‘margin of appreciation’ and consider if the decision should be categorised as unreasonable. The Court then went on to conclude this second ground by confirming that the Minister’s decision is within the margin of appreciation and (at para 40) the Court confirm that although it is not a decision they would have made, it is very difficult to conclude the Minister’s decision should be struck down as unreasonable. The original approval was therefore quashed by the Court and the application remitted back to the Minister for further evaluation and consideration on the one ground, that he failed to take account of the impact of the proposals on the setting of the Seymour Cottage, as a potential listed building, as required by Policy HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Following receipt of the Royal Court Judgement the applicant submitted further information, being additional perspective drawings and a heritage appraisal. The application was therefore advertised publically in February 2014, and again in May 2014 when the applicant altered the form of Block A. The scheme as amended by the May 2014 submissions therefore represents the proposal for consideration in this Report.

Summary	The Royal Court Judgement identified the successful ground of appeal as the failure to consider the historic setting of Seymour Cottage, as required by HE1, and then the failure to balance any impacts against other planning considerations within the application. This Report concludes that the development as revised by the applicant will cause a minor adverse impact on the historic setting of Seymour Cottage. The Report then considers the impact on the setting of other Listed Buildings, and concludes that there is major beneficial impact from the development on the setting of Keppel Tower. In the context of the other planning policy matters, reviewed in this Report and the earlier Department Reports, the Department remain of the opinion that the application delivers technically and aesthetically and it is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the completion of a planning obligation agreement.
Department Recommendation	APPROVAL

8. Site Description & Existing Use	The application site is located off La Grande Route des Sablons, a short distance to the north of the Seymour slip. The site presently contains three properties, being (from the north to the south) Keppel Tower, Elizabeth Cottage and Maison du Roc. Each is between 1.5 and 2.5 storeys in height, and of a variety of architectural styles.

9. Proposed Development	The application seeks permission to clear the site and erect 17 units of residential accommodation in three blocks plus a fourth leisure block, The scheme comprises: Block A – to the south – is a free-standing building, of 2.5 storeys with accommodation within the roof. It provides 6 apartments comprising 3 x 2-bed units, 2 x 3-bed units and 1 x 4-bed penthouse. Architecturally it remains presented in traditional proportions, with granite and render walls, and a pitched roof finished in zinc. The May 2014 revisions move the western wing from the south side of the building, to the north side (so it is no longer adjacent to the mutual boundary with Seymour Cottage). Block B – to the centre – remains as previously designed, and is an Art Deco building of three storeys, with the top floor recessed and having a flat roof. It contains 5 apartments (2 x 2-bed units at each of the ground and first floors, and 1 x 3-bed penthouse). Block C – to the south side of the Martello tower – remains a 3-storey structure and was comprehensively redesigned following the first Ministerial Meeting, to open up the space around the tower. It comprises 4 x 2-bed units, and 2 x 3-bed units. Block D – to the north of the Martello tower – is an ancillary structure, being a modest flat roofed building, providing a swimming pool and leisure facility. The car parking is provided in a basement, which contains 40 residents spaces plus 6 visitor spaces, with other ancillary stores and cycle parking. The proposals for the Martello tower are indicative, but will involve stripping back the surrounding structures and restoring the facades.

10. Relevant Planning History	The history of the current application is set out in the earlier “background” section of this Report. P/2008/2010 which granted planning permission for the demolition of Elizabeth Cottage and the construction of a 4-bed dwelling lapsed on 17 June 2014.

11. Consultations

The consultation responses summarised below are those which have been received in relation to the readvertising periods in February and May 2014, after the application was referred back from the Royal Court. The previous submissions are reviewed in the earlier reports.

Parish in its correspondence dated 13 March and 21 May 2014 confirm their view that the development is too large and out of keeping with the area, looking huge against Seymour Cottage.

Historic Environment Team of DoE provided a consultation response dated 31 March 2014, which is supplemented by further feedback dated 12 June 2014 (reviewing the implications of moving the gable of Block A).

The HET response notes that whilst the gable has been repositioned to create a gap of 15.5m between it and Seymour Cottage, it has not been reduced in mass or scale, and remains out of scale in the locality and is not a vernacular response to its context. They also retain their view that the close proximity of the eastern mass of Block A (having an eaves height similar to the ridge of Seymour Cottage) will affect the setting in longer views from the east.

The response also supports the enhancements of the setting of Keppel Tower and notes that the repositioning of the gable to Block A will now have a greater impact on the setting of Cyprus House (a potential Listed Building). Whilst the HET feedback considers that alterations to the scheme could mitigate any impacts on both Cyprus House and Lucknow (another neighbouring potential Listed Building) the feedback also confirms that the proposed development, in the context of the existing built-up area, does not impact enough to detrimentally affect the character or special significance of these properties.

Letters from the applicant, responding to these consultations, are included as background papers to this Report.

All consultations are attached with the background papers

12. Representations

There have been 42 letters of representation. This is across 2 periods of consultation and several letters are from the same households. Some representations also refer to earlier submissions in the history of the application, as considered in the previous Department Reports. The letters include submissions from Deputy Labey and the National Trust.

Detailed submissions have been received from the original appellant, relating specifically to the Royal Court judgement and the position in relation to Policy HE1 of the 2011 Island Plan. These submissions are reviewed in more detail later in this Report.

All submissions raise objections, which relate to the following points.

The scale, mass and intensity is too large in its context, especially in relation to Seymour Cottage and its coastline location, and will form a precedent for other schemes to follow;
The alterations to deal with the impacts on the historic setting of Seymour Cottage fall short of the suggestions made in the HET consultation response, in particular the scale of the gable;
There will be a loss of privacy and harm to the amenities of the occupiers of Seymour Cottage;
Traffic impacts will be unreasonable;
The conclusion of the Royal Court judgement on the second ground was unsuccessful on such a narrow point, that the matter of general scale, form and amenity should be reconsidered;
The Minister is not the appropriate forum to reconsider the application as he may be prejudiced by his previous determinations;
Keppel Tower would remain obscured in views from the south;
The repositioned wing of block A means the gable would be nearer Prospect House and will have an overbearing impact, and cause a loss of privacy;
Flooding risk at surrounding properties will increase due to the basement excavations;
The Minister is on record as wanting greater input from local communities, and this is a prime example of such comments being ignored;
The CGI’s are not clear or convincing, and a scaffold frame profile should be erected;

The agent has responded to a selection of these letters, and the relevant correspondence is included as background papers to this Report.

All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

13. Planning

Assessment

The earlier Department Reports, included with this Report, provide the majority of the Planning Assessment. Matters in relation to (for example) highways, drainage, landscape and planning obligations, all remain as originally proposed. These matters have therefore been reviewed in the earlier assessments, and were not matters referenced in the Third Party Appeal. In this regard, the current Report needs to take its reference from the Royal Court Judgement.

In relation to the Judgement, it is important to recap (as summarised earlier) that, notwithstanding the commentary on whether they would have come to the same decision, the conclusion of the Court on the second ground of appeal was that it was very difficult to conclude that the Minister’s decision was unreasonable or inconsistent with the Island Plan in relation to the increase in footprint, height and proximity of Block A causing harm to the general amenities of Seymour Cottage (para 40 of the Judgement).

The single successful ground, as referenced by paragraph 41 of the Judgement was the failure to consider the impact of the development on the setting within which the potential listed building, Seymour Cottage, is found – contrary to Policy HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

Further clarification of the Court consideration on this ground is offered elsewhere in the Judgement (particularly para 30). It is clear that the Judgement does not say that there will be an unreasonable impact on the setting of Seymour Cottage as a potential listed building – the Judgement just highlights the lack of the necessary assessment, and (in the absence of the necessary analysis) it offers no speculation as to the conclusion of that assessment. Rather, the Court identifies the shortcoming as the failure to consider the historic setting, as required by HE1, and then the failure to balance any impacts against other planning considerations within the application. These are the matters which must now be assessed.

Policy HE1 of the 2011 Island Plan considers Protecting Listed Buildings and Places and sets out:

There will be a presumption in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character and integrity of Listed buildings and places, and their settings. Proposals which do not preserve or enhance the special or particular interest of a Listed building or place and their settings will not be approved.

Permission will not be granted for:

1. the total or partial demolition of a Listed building;

2. the removal of historic fabric, which might include roofing materials, elevational treatments (such as render or stucco) and their replacement with modern alternatives;

3. the addition of external items, such as satellite dishes, antennae, signs, solar panels and roof lights, which would adversely affect the special interest or character of a Listed building or place, and its setting;

4. extensions, alterations and changes which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest or character of a Listed building or place, and its setting.

In those exceptional cases where there is a loss of the historic fabric of a Listed building or place, the Minister will ensure that the recording of that fabric to be lost is undertaken, as appropriate.

Applications for proposals affecting Listed buildings and places which do not provide sufficient information and detail to enable the likely impact of proposals to be considered, understood and evaluated, will be refused.

The assessment must therefore consider whether there is an adverse effect on the historic interest or character of Seymour Cottage and its setting.

Since the previous assessment it is notable that Seymour Cottage has been confirmed as a Listed Building, with Grade 4 status.

The Statement of Significance records:

Mid C19 cottage retaining exterior features and character; of the single-storey form characteristic of the St Clement and Grouville coastal area.

The External Description reads:

Detached cottage, single storey, 5 bay with later L shaped extension to the east. Front (south) elevation: Slate roof with new box dormers. Coursed rubble stonework with brick window surrounds. 2 leaf matchboard door with long hinges. 5 pane overlight. New timber glazed porch with pitched roof and finial.

In support of the proposal, the applicant has submitted a report which appraises what they consider to be the relevant impacts (Absolute Archaeology Feb 2014 – included with the background papers to this Report) and a series of CGI / photomontages which provide ‘before and after’ images from a wide arc of viewpoints. The appellant has also submitted a detailed critique of the applicant’s submission, which includes their own assessment of the impacts on setting. Further, a consultation response has been received from the Department of Environment Historic Environment Team (HET) providing their review of the situation. These submissions have all been up-dated / supplemented to take account of the revised position of the gable of Block A, and are all included with this Report.

A key thread of all these submission is the understanding that Seymour Cottage was, and still is, part of the coastal grouping of fisherman’s cottages, which sit gable-on to the sea, in historic ownership plots. As the HET report notes, this is still a discernable pattern at the site and in the locality. The submissions from the appellant describe in detail this ‘historic backcloth’ and the all submissions acknowledge the present visual links between the remaining historic buildings in the locality. All the submissions also then provide commentary on the issues of scale within this context and specifically between the application proposal and Seymour Cottage.

It is acknowledged by the applicants own submission that the view of Seymour Cottage will be altered, but they claim it will not be impaired, by the new development. They also note the development will have an impact which will change the way Seymour Cottage is experienced, and argue that this experience may be enhanced by the development, which is already in an area with eclectic architectural styles.

The HET consultation response sets out that the impact on Seymour Cottage’s setting will be detrimental in so far as the impact of the scale of the new blocks unfragmented form on the northern boundary in views from the east, and the larger gable to the western boundary in views locally from the west. The original HET consultation response suggested the impact could be mitigated by reducing the height, scale and mass of Block A and its proximity of the site’s southern boundary. They consider the revisions to reposition the gable do not alter these opinions, and indeed may have a greater impact on Cyprus House.

The appellant sets out that they find it ‘quite astonishing’ that the developer has failed to address the concerns within the HET report and they retain their view that the development will cause irreversible damage to the setting of Seymour Cottage by reference to its excessive scale and inappropriate character.

As all the submissions acknowledge, Seymour Cottage already has a compromised setting – the historic backcloth referenced by the appellant has been considerably altered to the context today. Around the Cottage and in the immediate coastal strip there are large, late 20th century structures which have already impacted negatively on its setting. These include the existing property Maison Du Roc, to the north, and indeed the north-south extension to Seymour Cottage itself.

In key views the visual context of Seymour Cottage will be altered, but it is considered that these alterations are limited and must be assessed against the fall-back position of today’s context. The gable of Block A is proposed to be sited in the approximate position of the current Maison Du Roc roadside garage. Using this reference, plus the CGI’s and photomontages, shows that when arriving from the south along La Grande Route des Sablons the only loss of historic visual context and connectivity between historic properties will be the glimpsed view of the very upper element of Keppel Tower. The other visual links (La Rocque Cottage, Seymour Inn and Cyprus Cottage etc) will all remain. A new building will appear in the contextual view, in the same manner that the various existing historic properties are not currently perceived in individual isolation.

When arriving from the north, the visual link with the gable of Seymour Cottage will also be retained, and perhaps this feature will be even more prominent, as the application includes the introduction of a pavement which will enhance the line-of-sight to place the focus directly on the gable of Seymour Cottage, before the road begins to turn. The 15m gap between the repositioned gable of Block A and Seymour Cottage is a significant visual break – when travelling along the main road the visual ‘arrival’ of Seymour Cottage (excluding its gable) does not occur until the observer is almost adjacent to its northern boundary, and the rear of the Cottage then appears. At this point, the main mass of Block A is some 10m back from the highway, and sufficiently off-set from the Cottage to ensure its rear face is still read (in the same one clear view that an observer would currently have) looking eastwards along the rear driveway.

The views from the foreshore are also heavily compromised at present, as all the submissions acknowledge. The north-south wing of Seymour Cottage will continue to block the views of the historic ‘fisherman’s cottage’ element of the property. Although the Statement of Significance from the Listing description does not explicitly exclude this more modern wing, the same Statement of Significance is also clear that the historic interest is in the “Mid C19 cottage retaining exterior features and character” – and it is this element of the building which is obscured by its own more modern extension in views from the foreshore.

In wider views the scale of Block A would appear a full storey higher than Seymour Cottage, but this is not an uncommon relationship in an eclectic coastal strip. It is also worthwhile noting that even if Block A were reduced in scale, or moved away from the mutual boundary, an observer on the foreshore would still not be able to identify the exterior features or character of Seymour Cottage which resulted in the Listed Building designation.

It is for these reasons that the impact of the development on the setting of Seymour Cottage, as relevant to an assessment under Policy HE1, is considered to be a minor adverse impact.

That is not the only matter which the Royal Court Judgement requires the planning assessment to consider (para 30) and the impacts on the setting of Seymour Cottage as relevant to Policy HE1 must also be balanced against the other planning considerations which affect this particular proposal.

The earlier Department Reports provide the necessary policy summary for the suite of other planning policy matters. This new Report must now consider the impacts on the setting of other Listed Buildings, aside from Seymour Cottage. As reviewed earlier, the HET feedback identifies these properties and considers that alterations to the scheme could mitigate any impacts on both Cyprus House and Lucknow (another neighbouring potential Listed Building) the feedback also confirms that the proposed development, in the context of the existing built-up area, does not impact enough to detrimentally affect the character or special significance of these properties. The development can therefore be considered as a neutral position on the historic setting of these properties.

The other key heritage asset is Keppel Tower itself, which is a Listed Building with Grade 3 status. The Statement of Significance includes that:

The interest of the tower is diminished by the addition of early-mid C20 buildings and associated alterations.

The application proposes to remove these additions, and open-up its setting. Indeed the HET consultation response welcomed this work even when the more clasping curved forms were proposed to Block C and D – these are now much altered, and provide a greater degree of openness to the tower. The National Trust also identify (in their letter of representation) that the proposals include for the “successful treatment” of the Listed tower.

The consensus is therefore a clear endorsement that the works within the application are a considerable enhancement to the setting of the Grade 3 Keppel Tower. This is therefore considered to be a major beneficial impact.

Therefore, when assessing the issue of the setting of Listed Buildings (as required by Policy HE1) in a comprehensive fashion - against the whole development - whilst the minor adverse impacts on the setting of Seymour Cottage are acknowledged, these are considered to be off-set (to a significant degree) by the major beneficial works to enhance the setting of the key heritage asset, Keppel Tower.

OTHER MATTERS

The relocation of the gable wing of Block A may impact on other interests and so will also require review as part of this up-dated Planning Assessment. Representations have been received from Prospect House, concerning the increased risk of overlooking between the two sites, and the overbearing impact of the gable within the garden of Prospect House, specifically overshadowing.

Having reviewed the situation on site, and in the drawings, the risk of direct overlooking is slight – the distance between the flank of Prospect House and the rear windows in Block A is about 17m, and the windows are (mutually) to secondary elevations, with both properties having different primary outlooks. In relation to overshadowing, the applicant has provided a shading diagram showing the situation at the September and March equinox. This does identify a morning period when a shadow would be cast from the repositioned gable of Block A. However, the majority of the overshadowing of the rear amenity space is from Prospect House itself, and the afternoon / evening situation remains unchanged. In the context of a location within the Built-Up Area, and the test within Policy GD1 (that development should not ‘seriously harm’ the amenities of neighbours) this situation is not considered to be unreasonable

POLICY GD2

The previous Department Reports provides an assessment which includes commentary that the loss of the buildings around Keppel Tower is justified, in part, on the basis of the improvements to the setting of the Tower. Within this context, the earlier Reports also identify the loss of Elizabeth Cottage is, in part, justified on the basis of the existing permission to redevelop the property. As is noted earlier in this Report (section 10 above) the permission for the redevelopment of Elizabeth Cottage has now lapsed. Although this permit no longer exists, the planning history is of some weight as a material consideration. It should also be noted that the imminent Interim Review of the 2011 Island Plan proposes to remove GD2 from the Island Plan. The Independent Inspector endorsed this approach following public inquiry and as such it is a material consideration of limited weight that the GD2 policy context may, shortly, no longer apply. The demolition of Maison du Roc has always been considered in relation to it being an integral part of the whole scheme, and accepted in the context of the submitted Waste Management Plan.

14. Conclusion

The Royal Court Judgement identified the successful ground of appeal as the failure to consider the historic setting of Seymour Cottage, as required by HE1, and then the failure to balance any impacts against other planning considerations within the application.

This matter has now been thoroughly assessed and the Department conclude that the development will cause a minor adverse impact on the historic setting of Seymour Cottage. The Report then considers the impact on the setting of other Listed Buildings, and concludes that there is major beneficial impact from the development on the setting of Keppel Tower.

In the context of the other planning policy matters, reviewed in this Report and the earlier Department Reports, the Department remain of the opinion that the application delivers technically and aesthetically and it is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the completion of a planning obligation agreement.

15. Department Recommendation	It is recommended that the Minister endorses the APPROVAL of the application, with the final determination being subject to the applicants entering into a suitable planning obligation agreement pursuant to Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended) to cover the delivery of: 1. A financial contribution in relation to the delivery of a bus stop, as agreed with TTS Highways; 2. A financial contribution to the Eastern Cycle Network, as agreed with TTS Highways; 3. A mechanism and timetable to ensure the delivery of the pavement and altered kerbs, as agreed with TTS Highways; 4. The ceding of the pavement to the public. It is recommended that the Director (Development Control) be authorised to GRANT planning permission under powers delegated to him subject to the conditions and reasons set out below and also subject to the prior completion of the planning obligation agreement referred to above. Alternatively, in the event that a suitable planning obligation is not agreed within six months of his being authorised in accordance with this recommendation, the Director (Development Control) be authorised to REFUSE the grant of planning permission.

16. Conditions	1. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, a scheme of landscaping which shall provide details of the following; i) all existing trees, hedgerows and other plants, walls, fences and other features which it is proposed to retain on the site and on adjoining land within the same ownership; ii) the position of all new trees and/or shrubs, this must include the species of plant(s)/tree(s) to be planted, their size, number and spacing and the means to be used to support and protect them; iii) other landscape treatments to be carried out or features to be created, for example, any excavation works, surfacing treatments, or means of enclosure; iv) the measures to be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs; and, v) the arrangements to be made for the maintenance of the landscaped areas. 2. All planting and other operations comprised in the landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out and completed in the first planting season following the commencement of development. 3. Prior to the commencement of development of hereby permitted, a report setting out the arrangements for the management of the landscaped areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to include that any trees or plant(s) planted in accordance with the approved landscape scheme, which within a period of five years from the planting taking place; die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season, unless the Minister for Planning and Environment gives written consent for a variation of the scheme. 4. A Percentage for Art contribution must be delivered in accordance with the Percentage for Art Statement submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Planning and Environment (Drawing L). The approved work of art must be installed prior to the first use/occupation of any part of the development hereby approved. 5. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details, including samples and colours, of all external materials and hard surfacing to be used to construct the development including the solar panels for the leisure block, windows, downpipes, hoppers, gutters, railings, roof materials, elevational finishes and road / footpath / driveway surfacing, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented, and thereafter maintained. 6. Prior to first use of the new junction of the site and La Grande Route des Sablons, everything within the required visibility sight lines (as shown on drawing C), including gates, walls, railings and plants growth is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. 7. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details, including location, heights, samples and colours, of all perimeter enclosures (walls, railings and fencing) shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented, and thereafter maintained. 8. Prior to the commencement of development, a Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be thereafter implemented in full until completion of the development and any variations agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to such work commencing. The Plan shall secure an implementation programme of mitigation measures to minimise the adverse effects of the proposal, and shall include: i) A demonstration of compliance with best practice in relation to noise and vibration control, and control of dust and emissions; ii) Details of a publicised complaints procedure, including office hours and out-of-hours contact numbers; iii) Specified hours of working to be restricted to 0800-1800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays; iv) Details of any proposed crushing / sorting of waste material on site; 9. No unit shall be occupied until a plan identifying the allocated car parking spaces for each particular unit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Such areas shall thereafter be permanently retained for the purposes of parking / manoeuvring. 10. Notwithstanding the information on the submitted drawings, prior to the commencement of development details of separated waste facilities and waste collection arrangements, communal satellite television reception system (or other communications infrastructure), electric car charging points and proposed rainwater harvesting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity. 11. Prior to first occupation of the units within Block A or Block D the windows as identified on the approved drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing and be of restricted opening, in a manner to be first submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter maintained in perpetuity. 12. Notwithstanding the information on the submitted drawings, prior to the commencement of development details of all external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity. 13. Notwithstanding the information within the submitted drawings, no works are approved to the Martello tower. Prior to the commencement of development a schedule of investigative works and the proposed repair, restoration, and future management shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented in full prior to first occupation of any of residential units hereby approved. 14. Notwithstanding the information within the submitted drawings, prior to the commencement of development the Archaeological Desk Based Assessment shall be amended in accordance with the HET consultation response of 10 October 2011 and a programme of works and timetable for those works is agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment to include as a minimum: that a full standing building recording is carried out; an English Heritage Level 1 visual record of the 19th century extension is undertaken; that trench evaluation of no less than 5% of the project site shall be carried out prior to the inception of groundwork; and, that the final development be subject to monitoring by an agreed project archaeologist. 15. Prior to the commencement of development, revised drawings shall be submitted showing the first floor privacy screen on the south side of Block A increased in height to 1.8m from the finished floor level. The screen shall be installed prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason(s): 1. To ensure that before development proceeds provision is made for a landscaping regime that will enhance the appearance of the development and help to assimilate it into the landscape and to deliver a high quality of design in accordance with Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 2. To ensure the benefits of the landscape scheme are not delayed, in the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 3. To mitigate against the potential failure of trees and plants, and the extent to which that might threaten the success of the approved landscape scheme and in accordance with the requirements of Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 4. In accord with the provisions of Policy GD8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 5. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to deliver a high quality of design in accordance with Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 6. In the interests of highway safety, in the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 and of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 7. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to deliver a high quality of design in accordance with Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 8. To ensure the development does not have an unreasonable impact on public health or the wider environment and to accord with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 9. To ensure that the site has adequate car parking facilities in accordance with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 10. In the interest of sustainable development and adequate service infrastructure, and to accord with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 11. In the interests of the amenities of the area and to accord with the provisions of Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 12. In the interest of sustainable development, to protect the amenities of the area,, and to accord with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 13. In the interests of the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment, in accordance with Policies HE1 and HE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 14. In the interests of the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment, in accordance with Policies HE1 and HE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 15. In the interests of the amenities of the neighbour to the south, in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

17. Reason for Approval	The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policies GD1, GD2, GD3, GD5, HE1, HE5, H6, BE4 and WM1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. In this case, having regard to the character and grain of the area, and the scale, form and architecture of the proposal, alongside the full package of works including to the Martello tower, the proposed development is regarded as acceptable because it does not detract from the amenities of the area and provides enhancements to the urban form and historic environment. The impact on the setting of individual Listed Buildings has also been considered and found to be acceptable when balanced across the impacts on all Listed Buildings, and other planning considerations within the application. In addition, the representations raised to the scheme have been assessed. However, it is considered that the proposal accords with the terms of policies within the Jersey Island Plan 2011 in that it does not have an unreasonable impact on amenities of neighbours or the area generally.

18. Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Department Reports from March 2012 and October 2012 January 2014 Royal Court Judgement Consultation responses Letters of representation Responses from agent.


Endorsed by:		Date