Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Pinewood and Seacroft - Appeal Decision (P/2018/0091)

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

  • demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision

  • providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made on 4th March 2019

Decision Reference:    MD- PE- 2019 – 0025

Decision Summary Title:

Appeal Decision – Pinewood and Seacroft (P/2018/0091)

Date of Decision Summary:

26 February  2019

Decision Summary Author:

Principal Planner – Strategic Policy, Performance & Population

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title:

Inspector’s Report- Pinewood and Seacroft

Date of Written Report:

17 February 2019

Written Report Author:

Graham Self MA, MSc, FRTPI

Planning Inspector

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

 

Public

Subject:

Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a decision to refuse planning permission to; “Demolish existing properties. Construct 14 No. two bed apartments and 2 No. three bed dwellings with associated landscaping and parking” at Pinewood and Seacroft, La Grande Route de la Côte, St Clement.   (P/2018/0091)

Decision:

The Minister dismissed the appeal and upheld the original decision to refuse the planning application.

Reason for Decision:

The Minister agreed with the recommendation of the Inspector.

Resource Implications:-

None

Action required:

Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.

Signature:

Deputy J Young

 

 

 

Position:

Minister

Date Signed:

 

 

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Hide report
Pinwood and Seacroft - Appeal Decision (P/2018/0091)

Planning & Building (Jersey) Law 2002 - Appeal under Article 108

REPORT TO MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

By Graham Self MA MSc FRTPI

1

 


Report to Minister for the Environment - Appeal Reference P/2018/0091

 

 

Appeal by Rose Developments Ltd against a refusal of planning permission.

Reference Number: P/2018/0091

Site at: Pinewood and Seacroft, La Grande Route de la Côte, St Clement, JE2 6PX

Introduction

  1. I held a hearing into this appeal on 6 February 2019 and later inspected the site and surroundings, after a preliminary visit on the previous day.
  2. The appeal is against the refusal of planning permission for proposed development, described in the application as: 

 "Demolish existing properties Seacroft and Pinewood and construct 14 No 2 bedroom apartments and 2 No. 3 bedroom houses with associated covered parking areas, amenities and enlarge access road to commercial properties behind."

  1. The application was dated 9 January 2018[1], was date-stamped as received by your Department on 19 January and was validated by the Department on 30 January 2018.  The Department's stated reason for refusal is:

 "The proposed apartment blocks by virtue of their proximity to the road, four storey scale and design are considered to be unduly dominant and harmful to the streetscape and character of the area contrary to Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (Revised 2014)."

  1. In this report a brief description of the appeal site and surroundings is provided, followed by summaries of the cases for the appellant and the planning authority.  I then set out my assessment, conclusions and recommendation.  The appeal statements, plans and other relevant documents are in the case file for you to examine as may be necessary.

Procedural Matters

  1. The application was made by "Rose Developments".  As noted in the summary details above, the appeal was made by "Rose Developments Ltd".  Since the right of appeal in this case would only have been held by the original applicant, at the start of the hearing I asked the appellant company's representatives whether there was any body or organisation known as Rose Developments, separate from the limited company.  From the replies it seems that the applicant and appellant are effectively the same body, so I consider that the appeal can be treated as having been validly made by the applicant despite the different naming.

Site and Surroundings

  1. The written statements and other submitted material in the case file include numerous photographs showing the appeal site and surroundings from various viewpoints.  The application drawings are also supplemented by perspective 3D view illustrations.
  2. The appeal site is located on the north-east side of La Grande Route de la Côte.  The coastal beach with the sea beyond are on the other side of the road, beyond a roadside wall built of pink-brown granite blocks.
  3. Two detached dwellings stand on the site - Seacroft to the north-west and Pinewood to the south-east.  Both of these dwellings are two-storey houses with pitched roofs and a "bungalow-style" design.  Pinewood is smaller than Seacroft and is set back further from the road than Seacroft.  There are vehicular and pedestrian accesses off the road to Seacroft; the vehicular access to Pinewood is off a tarmac-surfaced driveway which also leads to a group of industrial buildings on land at the rear (this is the area edged blue on the site location plan, Drawing 482-001, showing that this land is owned by the appellant company).
  4. The pattern of development in the surrounding area varies.  There are some individual houses, and blocks of apartments where redevelopment appears to have taken place in recent years.  Building heights differ, and are influenced by variations in design, depending, for example, on whether there is parking space at lower ground floor level.  Immediately north-west of the appeal site there is a block of apartments known as Silver Sands, immediately beyond which to its north-west is a parcel of land laid out as a garden, next to a side road (School Road).  This road leads to land behind Silver Sands where there is a Marks and Spencer shop and a local post office.
  5. Silver Sands has three storeys above a semi-basement level of car parking.  The roof of this block is part sloping and part flat, the lower, flat part being next to the appeal site.  The block at Silver Sands stands within about 1.5 metre of its south-eastern site boundary.  The apartments in Silver Sands have balconies facing south-west with views over the coast.  Some of the balconies are on the front corner of the block next to the appeal site.
  6. The block of apartments known as Jocelyn, south-east of the appeal site is described in the appeal statements as under construction, but it was complete and appeared to be at least partly occupied at the time of my inspection.  This building stands the other side of the access driveway mentioned in paragraph 8.  It is a three-storey building which apparently contains five 2-bedroom flats, with balconies facing south-west with coastal views.  Beyond Jocelyn to the south-east the next two plots are occupied by two-storey bungalow-style houses.
  7. There is no roadside footway (pavement) immediately in front of the appeal site, so vehicles pass close to the boundary wall next to the carriageway.  This section of road appears to be a well-used, busy traffic route.  Visibility from the driveway next to Pinewood is restricted in both directions, particularly to the north-west.  The part of this driveway near the road is wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other, but it narrows and becomes single-vehicle width a little further back.

Case for Appellant

  1. The main statement of case submitted for the appellant company sets out the history of the proposal, reviews various discussions and exchanges of correspondence which have taken place, and refers to the relevant policy context.  The following policies are specifically mentioned:
    • SP1 - Spatial Strategy.
    • SP2 - Efficient use of resources.
    • SP3 - Sequential approach to development.
    • SP6 - Reducing dependence on the car.
    • SP7 - Better by design.
    • GD1 - General development considerations.
    • GD3 - Density of development.
    • GD7 - Quality in design.
    • H6 - Housing development within the built-up area.
  2. The appeal is made on five grounds.  These are expounded in pages 5-11 of the appellant's main appeal statement.  The statement also contains an executive summary, a review of applicable law and planning history, plus references to the application, the proposal, and reasons for refusal (pages 2-5).  The appeal statement has 27 appendices which include letters of objection and support, the appellant's responses, copies of other correspondence, references to pre-application advice, a draft SPG Advice Note "Design for Homes - Residential Density", Jersey's Future Housing Needs Update 2016-18, and photographs of the site or nearby properties and surrounding area.  There is also a rebuttal statement (headed "Appellant's Response") which comments on points in the Department's statement.
  3. The following are the main grounds of appeal.
    • Having regard to the existing streetscape and character of the area, the proposal will not have an unduly dominant and harmful impact.
    • Insufficient weight has been given to other relevant policies in the Island Plan which set a general presumption in favour of development on this site to greater housing yields than have generally been achieved in Jersey.
    • Insufficient weight has been given to the substantial highway improvements that would be delivered by this proposal.
    • Insufficient weight has been given to other similar approvals for comprehensive developments within close proximity to the site.
    • Insufficient regard was given to the positive pre-application advice provided by the Department to the appellant and the Department's subsequent request for revised plans during the processing of the planning application on the presumption these would satisfy all the material considerations.

Case for Planning Authority

  1. The written responses by the Department of Growth, Housing and Environment are in two statements ("Response" and "Second Response").  The first statement has attachments including the Department's report on the application and photographs showing views along La Grande Route de la Côte.  A copy of the Department's pre-application advice dated 27 November 2018 is attached to the second statement.
  2. In summary, the main points made by the Department are as follows:
    • No objection is raised to the principle of redevelopment, and it is accepted that higher densities will generally need to be achieved; but under Policy GD3, the highest reasonable density should be commensurate with good design.  The checks and balances in Policies GD1, H6 and GD7 also have to be taken into account.
    • The decision to refuse permission was because of concern relating to the design, siting and scale of the development, and is consistent with policies.  
    • Other developments nearby comprise three storeys, thereby increasing density compared with older properties.  The proposed blocks would have four storeys, would fill the site frontage and project forward of neighbouring buildings.  The boxy and regimented design is unprecedented in this neighbourhood.
    • The highway improvements are welcomed but the benefits do not outweigh the objections on scale, design and siting grounds.
    • The Department made known its concerns in pre-application advice, but these were not overcome in the application.  The impact on neighbours is not a reason for refusal, and car parking provision is also considered to be acceptable.

Representations by Other Parties

  1. About 15 written representations commenting on the application were submitted by local residents or organisations.  Most of these are from individuals objecting to the proposal.  Two objections are from local bodies (the Silver Sands Association and the John Le Quesne Close Residents Association).[2]  The main points made by the objectors are that the proposed blocks would be too high, too far forward, would be over-development, would add undesirably to local traffic, would affect privacy and light in neighbouring flats, would set an undesirable precedent, and would detract from the character of the area.
  2. A joint representation of support is from a group of companies (Floor Tex [Wholesale] Ltd, Aviation Jersey Ltd, Cutlers Construction Ltd and Lamera Ltd), referring particularly to the access arrangements.  These companies say that vehicular access to the commercial premises behind the site would be improved by the proposed development and that pedestrian access for staff and visitors would also be made safer.

Assessment and Conclusions

  1. The central matter of dispute in this case is whether the design, appearance and siting of the proposed blocks would be satisfactory, having regard to the local scene and to relevant planning policies.
  2. As may be apparent from the photographs and descriptive material submitted in evidence, the area along La Grande Route de la Côte in the vicinity of the appeal site has a mixed character, particularly where blocks of flats with modern designs have replaced houses set in individual plots.  This general trend is in line with Island Plan policies aimed at achieving higher density development in the built-up area of St Helier, although as the planning authority point out, for policy purposes there are differences between the town of St Helier and the wider built-up area, and increases in density should also have regard to requirements for good design.[3]  The nearest part of the "town of St Helier", as defined for strategic plan policy purposes in the Island Plan, is not far from the appeal site (the boundary is around 650 metres to the north-west)[4].  This site is clearly in the built-up area of St Helier; but equally clearly it is outside the "town".
  3. The proposed development would have several positive aspects.  It would meet the policy aim just mentioned of making the most efficient use of land in the built-up area by redeveloping at a higher density than the existing houses, thereby achieving what the Island Plan terms "greater housing yields than have generally been achieved in Jersey".  This would be in line with the aims of strategic policies in the Island Plan, including policies SP1, SP2 and SP3.  The combination of higher density development and the location on a bus route would also be in accord with policies such as SP6, aimed at reducing dependency on travel by car.
  4. The varied character of the surrounding area, with different building heights and set-back distances along La Grande Route de la Côte, also provides scope for redevelopment of this site with buildings having an individual design.  Useful gains in both vehicular and pedestrian safety would be obtained from the widening of the existing access way in the south-east of the site, the improvement of visibility from this access, the creation of a 2 metre wide roadside footway linking the existing footways on the inland side of the road north and south of the site, and the elimination of the vehicular access currently serving Seacroft.  The highway safety benefits would be offset to some extent by the fact that the presence of 16 dwellings instead of two would be likely to generate more traffic turning into and off a busy road. 
  5. The planning authority accept that several aspects of the proposal, including car parking provision, vehicle access arrangements and the siting and design of the town houses at the rear, are satisfactory.  I do not see any reason to disagree in those respects, although I think the appellant's claim that the town houses would have the benefit of sea views is overstated - any such views would be restricted to angled glimpses.  For this scale of built development, the amount of soft landscaping would be adequate, but no more than that.  The limited depth between the overhanging first floor front of the buildings and the repositioned highway boundary (barely 3 metres), combined with the need for the ground floor flats to have an outlook from their windows, would restrict the scope for planting or other soft landscaping in the publicly visible front part of the site.
  6. The proposal would also have a number of negative points.  These mostly relate to the bulk or mass of the proposed buildings, their height, their siting in relation to nearby buildings, and certain features of their design.
  7. It is necessary to consider those points in combination.  The two proposed blocks would stand further forward, nearer the road, than the blocks on either side, and the visual impact of this siting would be emphasised by the forward projection of the first and second floors.  The blocks would also have a fairly substantial front-to-back depth (approximately between 13 and 14 metres with some variation at different floor levels), which when combined with the forward projection would give them a bulky appearance in angled views from the road. 
  8. The blocks would be higher than the nearest parts of the buildings on either side.  To the north-west, the extra height compared with the closest part of Silver Sands would not be very great (about 0.6 metre), but the gap between Silver Sands and the nearest proposed block would only be about 3.5 metres.  To the south-east, the difference in height compared with Jocelyn would be greater (about 2.2-2.5 metres depending on which part of Jocelyn is taken to be the measuring point) but there would be a larger intervening lateral distance as Jocelyn is on the other side of the access driveway.  The 3 metre central gap between the two proposed blocks would only be readily apparent when seen from directly in front.  From most viewpoints along the road or beach the gap would hardly be perceived, and the two blocks would have the appearance of one bulky, forward-projecting structure.
  9. In addition to those factors, the design of the blocks is in my judgment unsatisfactory.  The rear elevation would be undistinguished, but unremarkable enough to be acceptable.  The front elevation would have rectangular-shaped projections which would be rendered and coloured white and grey.  The projections would be partly functional, to provide shelter for proposed balconies, and it is possible to see broadly similar design components on one or two buildings further along the coast road; but in the appeal scheme, these features would be obtrusively dominating and would emphasise the boxy shape and mass of the buildings.  The overall effect would not be helped by what one objector rather bluntly describes as "what would look like sheds" on top of the blocks.[5] 
  10. Nor would the panels of granite cladding rescue the design.  These panels would comprise horizontal strips of cladding and are evidently intended to imitate the roadside stone walling, although even if the pinkish-brown colour of the stone were matched I doubt whether the horizontal cladding strips would be seen by most viewers as reflecting the random stone structure of the roadside wall.  When seen together with the areas of different-coloured render and the large glazed areas - with their different shapes and the top floor glazed areas asymmetrically offset from the lower floors - this cladding would add to the hotchpotch appearance of the front elevation as a whole.    
  11. During the hearing I asked the appellant's and planning authority's representatives each to say where they would place their assessment of the design and appearance of the proposal on a descriptive scale, which I specified as: "beautiful-attractive-acceptable-unattractive-ugly".  The appellant's agent opted for "attractive".  The planning authority opted for "unattractive".  Taking into account the combined effect of the points just described, I would go further than the planning authority:  I judge that the appearance of the development would fall somewhere on a spectrum between unattractive and ugly. 
  12. Although the design of buildings can be assessed objectively by considering aspects such as shape, height, finishing materials, proportion of window to wall and siting, there is an element of subjectivity in such assessments.  It is of course for you to make your own judgment from all the available evidence including the submitted drawings and photomontages. 
  13. As is common in this type of case, the policy background can provide arguments both ways.  There is a degree of tension between policies aimed at increasing the density of development in the built-up area and requiring good design.  In my judgment the proposal would not meet Island Plan policy criteria (in Policy GD3) on achieving the highest density commensurate with good design.  The provisions of Policy H6 on matters such as space standards would be met, and in some respects the proposal would achieve the "sustainable development" mentioned in Policy GD1; but the proposal would not obtain what the same policy calls "the highest standards in the design of new buildings".  Nor would the development make what Policy SP7 terms "a positive contribution" to urban design objectives. 
  14. Part of the appellant's case is that the benefits of the development were given insufficient weight.  The benefits are clearly material considerations.  But it ought to be possible to achieve benefits such as improved highway safety and increased "housing yield" without the objections about the proposal's design, siting, and effect on the appearance and character of the area.
  15. The appellant's main statement of case refers to similarities between the appeal proposal and other developments in the area for which approvals have been granted, including: Coast Road Stores, Grève D'Azette, St Clements; Clos de Charrière; and the former Samares Coast Hotel (now Sandbanks).[6]  During my inspection I saw some of these developments, and others in the vicinity where redevelopment has taken place.  Some of them fit reasonably well into the street and coastal scene; others do not, jarringly so in one or two cases.  In any event I do not consider that other developments in the area have set such a precedent as to justify permitting this scheme.[7]  Therefore I do not agree with the appellant's argument that insufficient weight was given to other approvals for redevelopment projects in the locality.
  16. Many of the written objections from local residents say that the development would cause overlooking or loss of outlook from dwellings in the Silver Sands block.  Because of its position forward of the Silver Sands building, the proposed block next to Silver Sands would obstruct angled views from some balconies at Silver Sands and cause some loss of morning sunlight.[8]  However, the effects would not be so harmful as to warrant withholding planning permission.  Windows in the sides of the proposed block would be obscure-glazed and the introduction of screening at the sides of the balconies in the proposed block should be sufficient to maintain reasonable mutual privacy between the sets of apartments.
  17. The appellant company and its advisers are evidently annoyed that the refusal of planning permission differed from what they expected after pre-application advice from your Department.  Discussions evidently took place which resulted in a number of revisions, after a scheme for about 35 flats was originally proposed.  A later scheme would have included 28 flats.  Further amendments led to the proposal now subject to this appeal.  The company and its advisers evidently feel that the proposal meets the main points of criticism raised during the pre-application process, that they ought to be able to rely on pre-application advice sought over an 18 month period, and that "the proposal was only deemed unacceptable at the sign-off stage". 
  18. I can see that considerable effort has gone into improving the proposal compared with the original scheme.  The appellant's advisers were obviously encouraged by the Department's pre-application comments, and planning officers have made clear that the general principle of redevelopment of this site is acceptable, as are some detailed aspects.  Nevertheless the flaws I have described remain. 
  19. In summary, I find that the planning authority's criticisms on grounds mainly related to design and siting are justified; and although the proposal would produce benefits, they would not outweigh the objections discussed above.  I conclude that the refusal of planning permission should be confirmed.

Possible Conditions

  1. If you are minded to grant planning permission, it would be appropriate to impose conditions.  The most efficient way for me to advise on this matter is to list the topics which I think would need to be subject to conditions; then if necessary I could supply suggested precise wording, although the topics would be mostly covered by standard conditions.  There was general agreement at the hearing that conditions should cover the following topics:
    • Standard conditions normally labelled Conditions A and B, specifying a three-year implementation period and requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans and other details.
    • Landscaping details to be submitted for approval before development commences, and implemented.
    • Details of finishing materials to be submitted for approval before development commences, and implemented.
    • Details of a species protection plan to be submitted for approval before development commences, and implemented.
    • Percentage for art requirements to be approved and implemented.
    • Proposed car parking spaces to be provided and kept available for use by residents.
    • "Permitted development" rights for enlarging or altering the proposed houses at the rear of the site to be removed (so that any proposals for such development would be brought under normal planning control).

Recommendation

  1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

G F Self

Inspector

17 February 2019

1

 

[1]The application was signed by three people.  9 January 2018 is the latest of the dates which appear under the signatures and is evidently the date when the application was signed by the applicant's agent.

[2] John Le Quesne Close is a cul-de-sac located inland approximately east of the appeal site.  It is labelled on the applicant's Site Location Plan.

[3] Here I am paraphrasing from Policy GD3, which refers to Policies SP1 and SP2 on the efficient use of resources, and to the requirement to achieve "the highest reasonable density…for all developments, commensurate with good design, adequate amenity space and parking".

[4] This boundary is shown on page 18 of the Island Plan.

[5] Written objection by Ms Doreen Mills.

[6] Specific details of building heights, set-back distances etc relating to these developments are described on pages 17-18 of the appellant's statement of case, and there are images or photographs in Appendices 19 and 20 and an approved drawing of the Sandbanks scheme in Appendix 21.  A photograph of Sandbanks and other properties adjacent to the appeal site is photograph 3 attached to the Department's main response statement.

[7] In my view this applies to examples shown in photographs in the Design Statement submitted with the application (on a page headed "Precedent Images"). 

[8] The relationship between the two blocks is illustrated in the top left part of the 3D Aerial View shown in Drawing 482-017.

Our sites
Back to top
rating button