Nature of the Development The application as originally submitted was for the extension of the existing building to form 17 units. This cramped the site considerably to the extent that it resulted in an overdevelopment. The Department negotiated the development of the site into 7 good quality flats. The development of this site was (and remains) contentious and the Department received 10 objections during the determination of the application. Notwithstanding this, the application was approved subject to some amendments and conditions. Potential Overlooking The condition subject to this Request for Reconsideration was intended to prevent unreasonable overlooking to neighbouring properties resulting from the development. Due to the close proximity of dwellings there has always been a degree of overlooking between properties in this location. Octavia, to the north has a balcony and numerous windows face each other. No 26 Raleigh Avenue also had a flat roofed area that had the potential to be used as a terrace area. However, it is considered that its use was potentially limited in comparison to the newly constructed terrace given that the later is directly located off a living room. Development to the rear of 26 Raleigh Avenue The issue is complicated by the approval in August 2002, over a year prior to the submission of the application in question, of two dwellings to the rear of 26 Raleigh Avenue. It is considered that this development does prejudice the neighbouring properties to a degree due to the inclusion of balconies. However the development latterly proposed at 26 Raleigh Avenue did need to take into account the privacy of the new dwellings and hence the addition of Condition 2. The applicant is incorrect in stating that the balconies have to be screened according to a note on the approved drawing. Existing “balcony” and constructed balcony Notwithstanding any information submitted by the applicant, it should be noted that the originally submitted scheme proposed the removal of the “balcony” and its replacement with a smaller, south facing balcony. The only reason the balcony was considered by the applicant in this location was because the Department advised that the proposed increase in floorspace (and the associated increase in potential occupancy) represented an overdevelopment of the site and would be overbearing to the neighbouring property to the north. Therefore the scheme needed to be amended. Given the extremely limited amenity space that was being proposed by the applicant it is difficult to accept that it is now considered that a privacy screen would constitute “imprisonment”. Furthermore, the agent agreed (and the applicant was aware) to the privacy screen during negotiations and this was a material consideration when the Sub-Committee approved the scheme despite the strong objections from residents. Amendment to Condition 2. Having visited the site and considered the letters of representation it is clear that the issue of overlooking relates mainly to the potential view eastward towards the new development. It is considered that the privacy screen must be retained along its length. However, it would be reasonable to amend the condition to remove the screens to the north and south elevations of the balcony. The immediate neighbour to the north has not objected to the removal of the screen (see letter of the 30th January 2006), Octavia would not be harmed by this change, and the windows to the south are already overlooked to a large degree. This would allow the balcony to provide a greater degree of amenity without unreasonably harming the amenity of other properties. | 
gov.je