This application was for a 2 storey side extension within the Countryside Zone. Within the Countryside Zone, Policy C5 states that there is a general presumption against development, although domestic extensions and alterations may be acceptable subject to the scale, location and design not detracting from or harming the character and scenic quality of the Countryside. The agent states that: A) The suggested extension is modest and none impactive. B) A clear precedent has been set within this already built-up area, as almost every property has been extended and altered. This includes La Preference Farm and Ronceray. C) No objections on this application received. In response: Point A Not agreed, the proposal would be higher and would more than double the size of the existing property. The extension is proposed in a prominent position on the west elevation of the property alongside a highway to the west and with open views from surrounding the site including the roads and field to the north. A design statement has been submitted to justify why this is both necessary and acceptable, but despite this and other submissions including comparable cases, it is considered that the proposal is too large and prominent and would significantly impact on the character and scenic value of the Countryside contrary to Policy C5 and G2 of the Island Plan. Although in itself the extension is of a reasonable quality of design, it has a poor relationship with the existing modest simply proportioned property and would dominate and not blend in with the existing nor be subservient to it, as was advised in pre-application advice a number of times, and which would be expected in this Countryside Zone location. A modest subservient extension may be acceptable, but this proposal is not. Point B Comparable cases have been quoted by the Agent and these have been fully taken account of and the reasons why these are not directly comparable are briefly listed below: La Preference Farm: This application was to demolish the existing sheds and clear away the old contracting yard within the Countryside Zone to construct residential properties. This was approved due to the significant environmental improvements arising from the demolition of the existing industrial uses (not agricultural) and the reduction in internal floor area by 30% from the previous buildings. Very different circumstances to this current application. Ronceray: The most recent application was for a first floor extension to provide 5 bedrooms for the Care Home. This is not comparable as this building is a Care Home (and involved the improving of facilities for the occupiers) and not a single residential dwelling house as in this application before us. In addition, the proposal was for a limited extension in the context of the existing building and is seen against the backdrop of the main large care home building. The existing building and extension are on a totally different scale to this proposal and not as visible in surrounding area. Le Choiseul: Since 1988 no extension has been approved by the Planning Department. Any extension before this time would have been under a different Planning Law and Island Plan subject to markedly different Policy and Design standards. The site is located within large grounds, the only application for any form of building is for a swimming pool and pool house in 1997, but this was for a limited building size in the context of the site and was not increasing the size of the property markedly as in this current application. Le Huquet House: Very different circumstances, historical reasons for permitting the extension and new dwelling. The new house was permitted in part because it meant the demolition of existing unsightly extensions and an improvement in design quality on existing. The most recent application in 2007 was for an improvement in design terms on the previously approved scheme, but has not yet been decided pending agreement of the site boundary. The extension and garage to the existing main house was adjudged to not be prominent from outside the site and is seen within the context of large gardens. These cases and the current application are very different, in terms of the impact on surrounding area, size of the grounds and involving the replacement of existing extensions, whereas this proposal is purely for new build. Point C Agreed, no objections received. But this application was refused due to its impact on Countryside Zone and poor relationship to existing property. It is agreed though that this current application would cause no impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light or privacy. Point D I would add that all letters and statements etc submitted for this planning application were fully considered and a detailed response to the issues including a review of why the comparable cases are not in fact comparable were included within the Delegated Planning Report. No meetings were held with the Agent/applicant during the application process as two formal pre-application cases had previously been given, which both raised strong objections to the schemes. The latest application is for one of those schemes, it was considered by the department that little had changed in the intervening period since this advice was given and that this proposal was a clear refusal. A meeting in the Department Offices took place after the decision was made to discuss future options. It was discussed that an extension of a more limited nature, probably to a different elevation to the main house away from the prominent position to the road to the west may be acceptable. | 
gov.je