The appellant’s arguments may be divided into two. Firstly, that the scheme was not unacceptable, and secondly that the department should have negotiated. The Department holds by the reasons for refusal: - Cramped overdevelopment; - Not mindful of its context, comprising 4 identical suburban houses; - There is no evidence that the existing building cannot be refurbished; & - No details of Waste Management. Taking these in reverse order, ascending in importance, it is indeed the case that permissions have been given on other occasions where Waste Management Plans are required by condition. However, this can only happen where the scheme is considered acceptable in all other respects. This application was not acceptable so such a condition could not be imposed. Moreover, the application should have included a WM Plan at the outset recognising the requirements of Policy WM2 of the Island Plan. The application also failed to include any statement of why the existing building could not be retained and improved and so it failed to address Policy G15. The appellant accepts that the building could be retained, but argues that a more efficient use of the site could be achieved through its redevelopment. It is fair to say that permission has been given in other applications for the redevelopment of buildings which (in theory) could have been refurbished, where their demolition allowed for a more efficient use of the site. However, such permissions would only be given where the proposed scheme achieved a good quality development. That is not the case here and therefore the scheme fails to satisfy G15 on that ground also. The most fundamental failings of the scheme are highlighted by Refusal Reasons 1 and 2; Policy G15 requires any redevelopment to achieve an enhancement of the site and surroundings, to avoid any unreasonable impact through visual intrusion and other amenity considerations, and be in accordance with other policies of the Plan. Those policies include G2 and H8 (both of which reiterate the requirement for any development to be in context), and G3 which, in addition, specifies key factors to be taken into account to ensure any development is respectful and of a high quality. The appellant describes the area as having a mix of styles, yet the agent has submitted a scheme with 4 identical footprints, all described on the application form as 4-bedroom two-storey houses. Even the appellant admits that some variety would be helpful, but none was included in the application. Moreover, although the appellant argues that the density is low, his statement accepts that this alone is a crude tool. Reference to the Leonard’s Garage application is not seen as being useful as the context of that site, adjacent to an estate of houses, as well as adjoining a category A site, is wholly different. This area indeed includes a mix of house styles, the majority with a road frontage and long, practically shaped, gardens. Despite its alleged low density the scheme has no units which actually address the road and none have long gardens. Units 2 and 3 are shown to have shallow, irregularly shaped gardens, and the smallest, Unit 4’s, is less than 6m deep, and squeezed between the house and Unit 3. The appellant accepts that the scheme could be improved, but feels that the problems could have been addressed through negotiation and subtle changes. However, the Department disagrees - the failings of the scheme were considered too fundamental. Had permission been given with styling reserved for example, when those details were later submitted, the Department could not reasonably try to alter the layout and the size of the houses as this would have been set in the permission. In this case the failings are not simply a matter of one issue such as the size and position of windows or the choice of materials. A conditioned permit was therefore not appropriate. Whilst it is true that applicants can submit In Principle applications with less detail than a full application, that application will still be judged by the same policies and must, therefore, address them. In this case that includes G15, G2, G3, H8 and WM2, and these policies clearly place the onus on the applicant to demonstrate that, for example, the scheme enhances the area, that the existing building cannot be retained and how waste will be dealt with. The application as submitted failed to acknowledge this, included no details of the existing house, no waste management proposals, and failed to illustrate any attempt to address its context. It therefore failed to address key polices and could not be approved. In the past the Department would often negotiate on schemes. It was accepted however that this is often unsuccessful and is extremely demanding on staff resources. The Island Plan therefore specifically worded certain polices to place the onus on the applicant to produce a good scheme at the outset. With resources still reducing relative to workload, and the Minister’s requirement for better quality development in accordance with policy G3, it is imperative that applicants and their agents realise their responsibility to produce good quality schemes and address the policies of the Island Plan. There is no requirement for the Department to negotiate on schemes; the requirement is for the Department to make decisions and for agents to submit appropriate schemes. For the reasons stated, the scheme was clearly unacceptable and failed to address several fundamental issues. It was wholly correct therefore that the application was refused. There may well be potential for some development on the site but, as stated, the onus is upon the applicant’s agent to take notice of the Island Plan and produce an acceptable scheme, not for the Department to do that for him. | 
gov.je