The property comprises a small single storey cottage, a small 2 storey barn to the west separated by a field which also extends in a northerly direction. The property came up for sale by tender in 2005 and the handling agents, H W Maillard, wrote to the Department requesting some general guidance on the development potential of the site. They were advised that the site lies in the Green Zone and that the St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework and a number of Policies apply including SO13 which states that where development is accepted, permission will be granted provided that its detailed treatment is of a high standard that respects, conserves and where possible, enhances the landscape and other valued characteristics of the area. Particular attention will be paid to scale, form, mass and amenities in relation to existing buildings, settlement, form and character, the degree to which design details, material and finishes reflect and compliment the style and tradition of local buildings. SO4 which states that development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect the landscape, character and appearance of the St Ouen’s Bay Special Area. The advice also addressed the possibility of a replacement dwelling and it was stated that it may be possible to allow a modest dwelling with rooms in the roof. Because of the prominence of the site the overall height would be most important The concluding advice was that there was very limited potential for development on this site. A number of enquires were made and the above advice conveyed. The site was then sold by tender. A number of architects were approached by the new owners and finally a request for pre-application advice was sought for a 2 storey extension to the rear and remodelling of the cottage. The extension sat above the existing cottage to the existing cottage and would make the site far more prominent and therefore the scale, mass and height of the extension was therefore unacceptable. Although the remodelling of the cottage was considered acceptable, the proposals were not in line with the advice and the Case Officer wrote back stating that as submitted, the scheme is not supported as insufficient regard has been given to the Policies of the Island Plan and the St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework. The architect wrote again as he did not agree with the advice but the Case Officer reiterated that advice. An application was then submitted and the architect argued that if the cottage roof were to be raised, then it would be of a similar height to a 2 storey extension to the rear. The major issue on this site is the fact that at present there is a modest single storey dwelling comprising 2 bedrooms, a lounge, and a kitchen and toilet and entrance hall to the rear in a small lean to extension. The property does not have a bathroom. To the rear of this building is a small flat roofed shed. The proposal converts the bedrooms and lounge to a living room and kitchen diner, removes the lean-to extension and replaces this with a 2 storey extension comprising 2 bedrooms and a house bathroom at ground floor and a bedroom and ensuite bathroom on the 1st floor. Although the architect considers the extension to be a modest one, the Department does not share this view and this is clearly demonstrated by the submitted plans. The existing cottage measures a total of 72 sq m. and the flat roofed shed 12sqm The extension to the rear would measure an additional 90sqm of which 60sqm are additional floor space. The height of the proposed extension would be 6.5m which is 2m higher than the existing cottage. The extension measures 4.5m deep x 8.8 m wide and it is considered this building would be prominent in the landscape and therefore does not accord with the stated Island Plan Policies. The structure has a tower like appearance and is partially clad in timber and the scale, siting and design of this extension is not considered to be acceptable. The architect states that the planning guidance placed too much emphasis on the ‘prominence’ of the site and has requested a site visit to show the Minister that the site is not prominent when seen from La Grande Routes des Mielles because it is only the bright red roof that makes the cottage stand out and the location of the site at the foot of and escarpment also serves to reduce the impact. The architect refers to development permitted in the Bay being El Tico and Les Hativieaux, however it is not considered that the merits of this case warrant the Minister allowing the scale of development proposed In his case, the architect case considers that the height of the extension would be similar to the height of the roof of the existing cottage if the roof was to be raised. However, the roof is not being raised and the logic of the argument is lost. The architect advises that the Minister has recently discussed the concept of granting ‘aggressive consents’ in support of good design. However, it is not considered that this site is right for aggressive development, nor is the design acceptable. It is a modest cottage and whilst the remodelling is considered to be acceptable, the rear extension is not. The cottage would be surrounded by a timber verandah, 1.6m in depth, with an overhung roof and balustrading. This part of the application is considered to be acceptable. In conclusion the original advice was carefully considered but clear in that this site had limited development potential, this advice was available to the estate agents who sold the property. They took the trouble to gain advice prior to offering the property for sale. It is apparent from the application that the accommodation was far too small for the applicant’s requirements and they should have heeded the advice from the Planning Department otherwise there is little point is the Officers giving clear advice for it to be ignored. A modest single storey extension to the rear that did not extend above or beyond the existing cottage would be acceptable along with an increase in the height of the roof to create additional accommodation. | 
gov.je