Original Decision The case for the Request for Reconsideration is set out in the agent’s letter of 12 December (attached). The reasons for the refusal of the application are set out in the Officer Report of 10 October 2006. The Land Controls and Agricultural Development Section of the Environment Department considered that the building is still potentially usable for the agricultural industry, and therefore should be retained as such. As an agricultural building the presumption of Policy C6 (Countryside Zone) is clearly against the redevelopment of modern agricultural buildings. It was also considered that although the design of the proposed buildings was thoughtful, the scale of those buildings, together with other domestic features such as means of enclosure, the proposed driveway, and the necessary improvement to visibility, would appear incongruous and detrimental to the character of the area. Finally, Transport and Technical Services (Highways) Section were concerned of the potential increase in traffic using the junction with La Grande Route de St Jean. The Appellant raises several issues, the key ones of which are set out, and addressed, below:- Appellant’s Case The application achieves substantial environmental benefits and a reduction in floor area envisaged by Policy C6 This refers to paragraph (c) which states that there is a clear presumption against the redevelopment of commercial properties. The paragraph continues, that such redevelopment will only be allowed where significant environmental gains including a reduction in floor area are achieved. The Appellant’s argument is that is a commercial building, or should be considered as such given other decisions by the Department, and the fact that the building has been empty for some time. He makes further statements later in the submission, to illustrate the alleged quality of the development and other substantial gains. These are however each addressed below. As a matter of principle, the redevelopment of modern agricultural sheds is discouraged by the Island Plan. This building has not been in a commercial use since it was last used in agriculture, and neither the Land Controls and Agricultural Development Section of the Environment Department nor the Department are convinced that the building is truly redundant to agriculture. Moreover letters have been received expressing interest in using the building. The presumption therefore is that it should be retained. However, even if the building were considered redundant, the scheme was still considered to fail to achieve satisfactory and substantial environmental gains that would have justified the redevelopment of the building. The building is redundant The Appellant notes that only one response was received to the advertisements in the Jersey Evening Post, that from Jersey Royal (Potato Marketing) Limited, who expressed an initial interest, but have not been in touch since. Since the Request for Reconsideration was advertised, the Department has received a further letter from Jersey Royal (Potato Marketing) Limited suggesting that they are interested in the site. In addition, further comments have been requested from Land Controls and Agricultural Development Section of the Environment Department, who still consider that the building is capable of re-use within the agricultural industry. The building is in a poor state or repair The building is a relatively modern agricultural shed, built approximately 20 years ago, and updated only 7 years ago. It is clearly not an old or dilapidated building, although it may not be capable of immediate use if it has not been cared for. It is not therefore considered that the state of the building is such that justifies its removal, nor that this means it is of no further use to the agricultural industry. The building is industrial in scale and an unattractive blot on the landscape It is agreed that the building is industrial in both its size and design, and it is not an attractive feature of the landscape. However, sheds such as this are inevitable part of the agricultural industry and therefore have become accepted as part of the agricultural landscape. A small housing estate in an otherwise rural area, with little development immediately adjacent, would however appear incongruous and detrimental to, an out of character, with the immediate vicinity and the character of the countryside overall. No representations were received from neighbours 3 letters of objection were received, one from The National Trust for Jersey, the other two from residents from La Rue de Bechet. The proposal achieves a substantial reduction in floor area The agent refers specifically to the requirement of Policy C6, when dealing with the redevelopment of commercial sites, to illustrate a significant reduction in floor area. A figure of 30% has often been sought by the Department. The agent argues that this development should be considered like that at Ronez L’Etacq, where a large building, with only one floor, but clearly two storey in its scale, was calculated as a two storey building for the purposes of comparing floor area. The figure of 30% has been used by Officers as a guide figure. It is not contained within the Island Plan. Each case has to be dealt with on its merits. In the case of Ronez L’Etacq, the Design Review Group had considered a lower reduction may be appropriate given that the site is immediately adjacent to a ribbon of residential development, and will sit within an existing quarry. No Permission has however been granted. It is accepted that the development proposed will result in a reduction in floor area. This in itself however is not sufficient to justify a redevelopment of a commercial site, let alone a modern agricultural building. The key issue is the impact of the development and whether, as a matter of judgement, it achieves substantial environmental gains. For the reasons stated in the original report it is not considered that the replacement of utilitarian, but accepted feature of the countryside, with a housing estate, results in a significant environmental gain, notwithstanding the reductions that have been achieved. Design and use of materials are appropriate to the area and achieve an enhancement The original Officer Report acknowledges that the design is quite thoughtful, but the design detail and approach does not overcome the more fundamental issues noted above. Garages are included This is noted, and the potential benefit in hiding cars out of view. Again, however this is a detailed issue that does not overcome the matters of principle. The site will be well landscaped, including the access which is not proposed, but existing It is accepted that the scheme included some landscaping, but again this was not adequate to justify approval notwithstanding the more fundamental issues. It was understood that the driveway would be replacing the existing, and would be landscaped, but it was the formalisation of this entrance including the landscaping and also the proposed visibility splays, that would be a further alien intrusion in the landscape. A model will be produced This is noted in the letter, but no model has yet been submitted. This would merely seek to illustrate the layout of the site and the design approach to the development, rather than address the more fundamental principles. It is considered reasonable therefore for a decision to be made on the basis of the application as originally submitted and the Appellant’s letter of 12 December 2006. | 
gov.je