Description of the Development This application is for the erection of a pair of single storey semi-detached 4 bedroom self- catering holiday accommodation units at Aigremont Farm, St. Saviour. The site is on the western edge of a group of farm buildings currently occupied by two polytunnel structures. The applicant has highlighted the fact that the units will be able to accommodate occupants with disabilities. The application as submitted includes location and siting details along with floor plans, but details of any associated access/parking arrangements have not been submitted. The main existing group of farm buildings offers two self-catering holiday accommodation units that have been created by the conversion of traditional farm buildings on the site (P/2003/1987). However, it is clear the primary use of the site is as an agricultural farm. Representations Some 3 representations were received in response to the original application expressing concern over the introduction of new structures/dwellings in the countryside A further representation was received in response to the RfR submission expressing concerns over the scale of development on the farm which would be adde to with this proposal. Planning Considerations The site lies within an area identified as Countryside Zone within the Island Plan 2002. Policy C6 Countryside Zone of the Plan states: The area outside the Zone of Outstanding Character, the Green Zone and the built-up area is designated as Countryside Zone. This zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. and The Planning and Environment Committee recognises, however, that within this zone there are many buildings and established uses and that to preclude all forms of development would be unreasonable. Thus, the following types of development may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside: and (v) suitable proposals for diversification in the agriculture industry in accordance with Policy C15; (vi) extensions to existing tourist accommodation in accordance with Policy TR1; As well as the Policy itself it is legitimate to take the supporting text to the Policy itself. In this case it is important to note para 5.49 of the Plan that states: “For any exceptions to the general presumption against development to be made, the applicant will be required to justify the basis for development in the Countryside Zone.” The development clearly relates to facilities proposed for tourist accommodation. Policy TR1 Development of New Tourist Accommodation states (i) Proposals for new tourist accommodation (both serviced and self-catering) within the built-up area will be favourably considered…….. (subject to limitations) and In the Countryside Zone and the Green Zone, extensions to existing tourist accommodation or the conversion of existing buildings will normally be permitted, where the proposed development satisfies the above criteria. Policy C15 Diversification of Agriculture of the Plan states: The Planning and Environment Committee will support proposals for diversification in the agricultural industry, provided that the development: · is complementary to the agricultural operations on the holding; · does not conflict with policies for the safeguarding of countryside character, nature conservation and the control of development in the countryside; · where possible, re-uses existing redundant farm buildings; · is located within or adjacent to an existing group of buildings and sited and designed to fit into the landscape; · will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area; · will not have an unacceptable visual impact; · is in accordance with other principles and policies of the Plan. Proposals which do not satisfy these criteria will not normally be permitted. Para 5.72 supports Policy C15, but underlines the fact that diversification can be within agriculture – organic production, energy crops or low intensity farming – or can be “appropriate countryside activities” such as recreation crafts and product processing or environmental management. All of this is underpinned by an aim of “the countryside retaining the unique rural character it has built up”. The polytunnels on which the site is located are temporary structures that will be removed to facilitate the proposed development. The polytunnels are neither buildings nor glasshouses in the context of the Plan and as such Policy C19 Change of Use and/or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings and Policy C20 Redundant Glasshouses are not relevant to considering this proposal. Policy C6 (vi) allows for extensions to existing tourist accommodation in accordance with Policy TR1. What is proposed with this application are two independent, self-contained and discreet units of accommodation. Whilst there are two existing units of holiday accommodation on the farm this proposal is clearly not a direct extension of either those units or indeed the buildings within which they are located. As such this proposal does not accord with Policy C6 (vi). Notwithstanding this assessment Policy TR1 itself is clear in both the Policy and the supporting text that any tourist accommodation must not undermine the Policies to protect and maintain contryside areas. Policy TR1 does support the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside or the extension of existing accommodation which for the reasons outlined above is not the case with this proposal. As with Policy TR1, Policy C15 only allows for diversification that does not conflict with the aims of protecting and maintaining the countryside areas and developing new buildings for tourist accommodation would undermine these aims. In light of the above, the application was duly considered and refused planning permission. Notwithstanding the above considerations since the original decision was made there has been a material change in circumstances in relation to the proposal. The buildings proposed are of a suburban design with no traditional detailing or relevance to Jersey vernacular or character. As the application is to be reconsidered in its entirety then it is valid to take into account the change in emphasis in relation to the quality of design of buildings advanced by the Minister for Planning and Environment in particular the Design Principles of May 2006. As such the proposal would not be acceptable on the basis of the proposed design of the buildings. Comments on the Applicant’s Case for Reconsideration The applicant has pointed to the State’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2011, which points to developing a tourism strategy. The final strategy is still awaited at the time of writing. The Economic Development Plan (2006) is acknowledged to seek to promote tourism, but does not identify specific actions or proposals. Jersey Tourism’s “A Strategy for Revitalising Tourism in Jersey” (2004) establishes a key priority is to explore ways to attract new tourism accommodation. The Strategy however seeks to “identify sites” rather than promoting any particular development. Similarly the Rural Economic Strategy, Growing the Rural Economy (2005) refers to examining how new tourist accommodation might be facilitated, but makes no specific statements that support the current proposal. The applicant highlights Para 11.18 of the Island Plan – supporting text for Policy TR1- that indicates a likely need for “new hotels, guesthouses, self-catering and camping sites during the Plan period”. However, this is clarified at Para 11.21 that this is part of the “dilemma (that) can be resolved within the Policies set out for new tourist accommodation”. In terms of the Policies of the Island Plan (2002) the applicant firstly addresses Policy TR1. The applicant’s main thrust is that the Policy of a presumption against new tourism accommodation only applies to the Zone of Outstanding Character (Policy C4). This is not the case as reference to TR1 makes clear. Whilst the applicant claims that the Policy and supporting text, by inference, allows for “reasonable exceptions” for new self-catering development this is not accepted. Such a situation could only be accepted if explicitly indicated within the Plan. In terms of Policy C6 the applicant claims that, notwithstanding the separate Policies for the Zone of Outstanding Character (C4), Green Zone (C5) and Countryside Zone (C6) there is a hierarchy of countryside zones and that each Policy should be applied in a less stringent manner as one moves down the hierarchy. This is not the case as the differences in each Policy reflect the hierarchy. Policy C6 states that “in all cases the appropriate test as to whether a development proposal will be permitted, will be its impact on the character of the zone…”. However, it is clear that this refers only to development that is acceptable in principle in the first instance as defined by the Policy itself. The applicant identifies Policy TR3 New or Extended Tourism and Cultural Attractions as relevant. However, this proposal is not a tourist attraction either in terms of Policy TR3 itself or by virtue of the existence of Policy TR1 which clearly specifically relates to accommodation. Other issues raised by the applicant, including the demand for the accommodation and the role the units could play in supporting the main agricultural use of the farm are noted but do not outweigh the Planning Policy considerations detailed above. The applicant has responded to the representation received by stressing the requirement of the applicant to look for other forms of income to supplement agriculture. The response highlights the recent decision to allow new accommodation at the Amazin Maze site. However this proposal is located at an identified tourist destination and had support from the previous Planning Sub Committee as part of a strategy for the site. This is not the case with this application. Conclusion In making the Request for Reconsideration, the applicant has not advanced any arguments that overcome the inappropriateness of this proposal in relation to the Policies of the Island Plan 2002. However, the applicant has identified that the second reason for refusal states that Policy TR1 only allows for the conversion of existing buildings to accommodate tourism. This is not the case as the Policy allows for the extension of existing tourist accommodation. As such it would be appropriate to amend the reason for refusal to reflect this. Added to the above the change in emphasis in how buildings on the Island should reflect the Islands character has grown in importance since the original decision. In light of this fact and that the RfR procedure serves to reconsider the application as a whole then an additional reason for refusal highlighting the unacceptability of the design of the proposals would not be unreasonable In light of the above, the decision to refuse the application should be maintained albeit with the amended second reason for refusal, as indicated above and an additional reason for refusal relating to the design of the proposal. as it is contrary to the Minister’s Design Principles. | 
gov.je