The proposal was refused under delegated powers as being contrary to policy C5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. The applicant has employed Mr Michael Stein to make his case for the reconsideration of this decision. Mr Stein rightly describes the site as being an enclave of existing development of varying ages and styles. He is also correct in saying that this is not an area of open agricultural land, but a back-land site that at present contains a reasonably large and dilapidated shed. Mr Stein also claims that the shed/workshop is commercial. It may well have been used for many years as a low key store for building and other materials but the building has no formal use as would normally be described as ‘commercial’. On this basis there is no case that the development would result in the removal of a commercial activity in the countryside allowing an exception to policy to be made on these grounds. The building may be unattractive but this in itself does not justify its replacement with a dwelling, unless it can be proved that such development would result in an improvement to the character of the area. The case officer does not believe that the replacement of this building would result in a significant improvement to the landscape quality of the area, but could be convinced that there would be little harm to the character of the area if a modest and sensitively detailed dwelling was put in its place. Mr Stein cites three precedents, only two of which are relevant to this case. The case of Field 609, Brookvale St Martin is not relevant to this case as the Committee of the time only considered a single dwelling appropriate due to the fact that the chalets on the site had clearly been used in the past for human habitation and the combined floor are could produce a ‘replacement dwelling’ under the policy exception. However, two more immediately relevant approvals do have bearing on this case. The approval in 1995 of a three bedroom dormer cottage (Kimberlea Cottage) in the garden of the property L’Aumont de Rondin, to the immediate west of the site. This site was located in the Sensitive Landscape Area of the Agricultural Priority Zone. Notwithstanding this the Committee recognised the circumstances of the site and concluded that given it location within a built up enclave gave exception and granted consent. Similarly in March 2003, an application for a dwelling in the rear garden of Windy Ridge, also located in this small enclave of development, was approved under the 2002 Jersey Island Plan. Policy C5 applied, as in this case. The Committee had regard to the approval in 1995 at L’Aumont and concluded that given the similarity of the circumstances decided to approve the application. Therefore given the strong precedent in the immediately surrounding area, it would seem unreasonable to maintain the refusal. This is however qualified by the fact that the property would have little impact on the countryside when viewed from outside the site. If the site had had been on the further fringes of the enclave of buildings, the case officer would not feel able to recommend this application. For the Ministers information there have been no representations received in respect of either the application or the Request for Reconsideration. If the Minister is to consider this application in the light of the officers’ current recommendation then it should be with appropriate landscaping conditions and a revision to the layout of the dwelling. This should include the reduction in depth of the plan, the reorientation of the shower room to the west to avoid overlooking to the west and the alteration of the external appearance to ensure that the dormers appear more modest and the overall aesthetic is more vernacular. | 
gov.je