La Falaise, Le Mont Arthur, St. Brelade: Determination of Planning Application (P/2007/0687)

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 16 December 2010 [A 2010 decision not recorded until 2012]:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2010-0132			Application Number: P/2007/0687
Decision Summary Title :	La Falaise, Le Mont Arthur, St. Brelade, Jersey,		Date of Decision Summary:		13 December 2010
Decision Summary Author:	A Townsend Principal Planner		Decision Summary:		Public
Type of Report:	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		N/A
Written Report Title:	Planning and Environment Report P/2007/0687		Date of Written Report:		2 July 2010
Written Report Author:	A Townsend Principal Planner		Written Report :		Public
Subject: La Falaise, Le Mont Arthur, St. Brelade, Jersey, Demolish existing dwelling and construct new 5 bed dwelling with pool, block up east vehicular access. RE-ADVERTISED: Proposed 4 bed dwelling. Additional information submitted including Environmental Statement and landscaping. AMENDED PLANS: Alterations to scheme including changes to position and height of building. FURTHER AMENDED PLANS.
Decision(s): Refuse Planning Permission. The Minister considered the application on 16 July 2010, and resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Department’s recommendation. The refusal was on the basis of the impact of the building upon the area and not any construction issues or overlooking of adjacent properties. Prior to issuing the formal Notice of Refusal the Minister requested advice from the Principal Planner (Appeals) and from the States Greffe. A Reason for Refusal has been finalised as set out below.
Reason(s) for Decision: The site occupies a prominent position on the skyline above the Village of St. Aubin. The site is also located within the Countryside Zone, wherein there is a general presumption against development. It is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its scale and design in this prominent skyline location would unreasonably harm the character and special setting of St. Aubin, particularly also when the proposed development is seen alongside the large new dwelling on the adjacent site to the south. As such, the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of Island Plan Policies G2 (i), G3 (i) and (ii), G15 (i) and C6.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties of the formal refusal.
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

La Falaise, Le Mont Arthur, St. Brelade: Determination of Planning Application (P/2007/0687)

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

P/2007/0687

Site Address	La Falaise, Le Mont Arthur, St. Brelade.

Applicant	Mr D Sheppard

Description	Demolish existing dwelling and construct new 5 bed dwelling with pool, block up east vehicular access. RE-ADVERTISED: Proposed 4 bed dwelling. Additional information submitted including Environmental Statement and landscaping. AMENDED PLANS: Alterations to scheme including changes to position and height of building. FURTHER AMENDED PLANS.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	23/03/2007

Zones	Countryside Zone

Policies	G2 - General Development Considerations G3 - Quality of Design G15 - Replacement Buildings C6 - Countryside Zone NR2 - Foul Sewage Facilities

Reason for Referral	MINISTERIAL CALL-IN – Number of objections.

Summary/

Conclusion

The site lies within the Countryside Zone wherein there is a presumption against development. In all cases the key issue will be the impact upon the landscape character of the zone. Replacement dwellings in the Countryside Zone have however been granted on many occasions where it is considered that the landscape impact is acceptable. This proposal is for the replacement of an existing dwelling with another, in an area with a clearly established residential character.

Although the existing building is single storey, and the proposed building includes a first floor, there are a variety of sizes, heights and styles of buildings in the immediate vicinity and it is not considered that a 2 storey building, nor contemporary design is necessarily out of place.

Policy G15 (Replacement Buildings) requires that any new building must enhance its site and setting and presumes in favour of retaining existing buildings where possible. Although the existing building is not built to current environmental construction standards, and is therefore not as energy efficient as a new construction, it is capable of refurbishment. The applicant’s main case for the proposal is that the proposed building will be a significant improvement upon the existing building, in terms of architecture, living accommodation and environmental efficiency. The application followed advice from the Design Review Group who considered it a potentially excellent design in keeping with the Minister’s design principles.

Having originally been considered by the Minister in June 2007, additional information has been submitted by the applicant and mains drains have been achieved. In addition, the building has been reduced in width bringing it in from its boundaries, lowered in height, so that the top of the building is no higher than the existing property’s ridge, and overlooking of other properties has been addressed by the use of obscurely glazed windows at first floor level where necessary, and balcony screens.

Whether the design is a positive enhancement, whether the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, and whether a replacement dwelling is justified given the presumption against development, are all matters of judgement. The Minister previously indicated his support for the style of development, subject to reduction in size, and that other issues of surrounding its construction were addressed. These now have been addressed and in accordance with the views of the Design Review Group, the application is again recommended for approval. A judgement on the key subjective issues is however the Ministers.

The proposal includes adequate car parking and amenity space to meet the Minister’s requirements.

Officer

Recommendation

APPROVAL

Site Description	The site is currently occupied by a single storey building with a tiled hipped roof, with two gables facing towards the east. It is one of a number of individual plots accommodating detached properties within a small group of houses. It is however designated as part of the Countryside Zone.

Relevant Planning History	None relevant.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	One dwelling with integral unit.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	One dwelling.

Background	This application was originally considered by the Minister on 26 June 2007, when the item was deferred for a site visit. Following that visit, the Minister asked for alterations to be made to the scheme. In considering the application in June 2007, he also requested that various other matters were addressed by the applicant including the alleged weight limit on the road, drainage and construction, plus the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement. An amended scheme was subsequently submitted and re-advertised. This did not however address all of the issues at that time. The applicant now believes that these have now been addressed and has therefore made a further submission. This again has been advertised and the Consultation responses and Summary of Representations referred to below, all relate to the latest submission. By way of background however, the Department’s original report of 19 June 2007 which includes reference to the original consultations and representations received, is attached as a background paper.

Consultations	Parish of St. Brelade - in a response dated 24 March 2010 (with their previous comments attached) note the potential impact on the bungalow behind, that the original scheme was excessive and obtrusive, (although the amendments may be an improvement), and that the effect on the skyline is out of keeping. A condition is requested requiring contractors and/or the agent to meet the Parish to discuss the use of the Parish road – this however is a matter between the applicant and Parish. The Minister, it is argued should take account of parking of tradesmen’s vehicles during construction – there is no parking available in the vicinity. The Parish also note the weight restriction on the private road. TTS (Drainage) have confirmed in a response of 9 June that the site has been connected to mains drains. The Environment Department in a response of 14 June note that if pool backwash goes to the foul sewer and the oil tank is above ground they do not have any particular concerns. The tank should be easily accessible for deliveries and to inspect for leaks, and must comply with Building Bye-Law requirements. Public Health in a response dated 17 June note that should a Construction Environmental Management Plan be considered appropriate it should cover Noise, Vibration, hours of work, control of dust, odours, and fumes, and put in place a way of communication with residents. All of these responses are attached as background papers.

Summary of Representations	9 letters of representation have been received raising issues including:- The site lies within the Countryside Zone, wherein there is a presumption against development. Construction difficulties – The applicant only owns the part of the private road immediately in front of his property, and enjoys a private right of way only from the Parish road up to his own property. He does not enjoy a right of way beyond his property, nor along the “top road”. This means that any vehicle travelling to the site can legally only drive straight from the Parish road along the lower part of the private road to the property and back along the same route. There is no legal right to continue around the central planted area and back along the top road. Given the scale of development which occupies most of the site, and the inability to park vehicles or store materials immediately adjacent, it will be impractical to construct a proposed dwelling without causing significant inconvenience to other users of the private road, potentially denying access for emergency vehicles. This became an issue during the construction of the adjacent property The Cliff, when a fire below required the houses to be evacuated and emergency services to gain access. Unacceptable levels of inconvenience and disruption during construction have recently been experienced at The Cliff. In that case reassurances were given that vehicle movements would be controlled to avoid large vehicles and the roads being blocked. In reality this was not enforced. Potential disturbance to the access road and ground around. The proposed building is too big for the plot and far bigger than the existing building. Light pollution from the new dwelling, as already evidenced at The Cliff. The proposal would be a carbuncle of industrial size. Detrimental impact upon the setting and atmosphere of St. Aubin. The site should be viewed from the Parish Hall. The site is very visible. It is considered that the development at the adjacent site, The Cliff has had a significant detrimental impact upon the area, and that the same mistake should not be made twice. Loss of privacy to Uphill Cottage and Carricknamart. Loss of view/amenity. It is accepted that a loss of view of a property is a marginal issue, but it has been taken into account at sites at La Pulente and at Les Ruisseaux Estate. The development is contrary to Policies G2 and G15. With regard to the latter, the existing building is capable of refurbishment. The weight limit on the private road is 10 tonnes, and no development should be allowed which is likely to require vehicles in excess of this which in turn are likely to cause damage to the road. The Department’s original report is flawed in that it includes no model, no Environmental report, no Access report and no Drainage Report. In response, the Architect and the applicant have responded in letters dated 26 February, 18 March, 26 March, 29 March, 14 April, 27 May, 17 June and 21 June. The 26 February letter was submitted with the amended package of details. These note in particular:- The site is now connected to mains drains. The building has been lowered. It is no higher than the existing ridge and the garage and study area are lower still. The first floor has been reduced by 8.1 metres reducing the width of the building and increasing the space to the side boundaries. The balconies have been reduced in size and screens added to the rear and the sides to avoid overlooking. There will be no material loss of view from Uphill Cottage. Additional granite has been added in the area of the pool, and on the boundary wall. It is also confirmed that:- Pool backwash will be direct to mains. Pool plant will be internal so as to cause no disturbance. Overlooking has been addressed by the alterations to the balconies and all first floor windows facing onto the access road will be obscurely glazed. The work undertaken to trees at La Villa Gardenia were undertaken with the owner’s agent’s permission. A complete landscaping plan is included. The stability of existing roads have been professionally surveyed and the expert has confirmed that it is capable of taking construction traffic. The applicant will take out full insurance to cover damage should such occur. With regard to construction, key workers will be bussed to the site. Where possible half loads will be used on trucks and cement lorries to keep to the 10 tonne alleged limit on the road, albeit there is no legal justification for this. Vehicles could also be located at a nearby property in the applicant’s ownership (Note: This will require Planning Permission). The building works will be undertaken in two phases allowing for a construction area to be created so that there is scope for materials etc, to be stored on site without disruption. The existing building is not built to modern standards and the creation of this new dwelling will enable significant improvements to the environmental efficiency. The views from the west will not be diminished. In response to the objections raised, the applicant notes:- That other houses have been altered and extended in the past without significant disruption, and without problems being raised with regard to rights of way across the private road. It would be unreasonable to deny the same to this property. The scheme is not an overdevelopment of the site – adequate car parking and amenity space are provided. Comparisons to the development at the adjacent property, The Cliff are unreasonable as that property is much larger. The design is a matter of taste and the Minister and the Department Architect in post when the original application was submitted were supportive of the design. Much of the disruption on the adjacent The Cliff site was down to the use of a mobile crane. It is not envisaged that such would be used at La Falaise. It is not considered that light pollution should be an issue. Light pollution is normally caused by external lights directed at a building. Only nominal normal domestic external lights are proposed. Reference is made to disruption at The Cliff lasting two years. The construction period was actually 14 months. A letter has also been received from The National Trust who raised no objection to the amended scheme. All of these latest letters of representation and the responses from the applicant and his architect are attached as background papers.

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations The site lies within the Countryside Zone wherein Policy C6 sets a general presumption against development. There is no specific reference to replacement dwellings. Supporting paragraph 5.48 states that the redevelopment of existing buildings will only be permissible where environmental benefit and restoration of landscape character is secured. This is carried forward into the policy text in sub-paragraph C but only with regard to commercial development. It states that there is a presumption against the redevelopment of “other commercial buildings”. The policy makes no specific reference to replacement dwellings and whether they are acceptable or unacceptable. The policy continues to state that in all cases the appropriate test as to whether a development proposal will be permitted will be its impact on the character of the zone and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the plan. Wherever possible, new buildings should be sited next to existing ones or within an existing group of buildings. A key material consideration in this case is the character of the area and the context of this specific site. Although within the Countryside Zone, it is not a proposal for new development on virgin land, but for the replacement of an existing property within an established group of residential dwellings. It is not proposing a residential development where there is not already a residential development. Moreover, the replacement of existing buildings within the Countryside Zone has often been accepted, provided it has been assessed that the development has an acceptable or positive impact upon the character of the zone. Given the context of this specific site, the character of the group of dwellings within which it sits and that there is an existing building on site, it is considered unreasonable in principle to deny a replacement dwelling on the site. Policy G15 (Replacement Buildings) places a presumption in favour of retaining existing buildings where possible and requires any new development to be an enhancement. Policies G2 and G3 require a high quality of design which is sympathetic to its setting and adjacent properties, and provides adequate amenity space, car parking etc. Policy NR2 states that development which may cause pollution of the groundwater will not normally be permitted. Land Use Implications There is no change in land use. Size, Scale and Siting The siting of the proposal is similar to that of the existing building, albeit that the new proposal is larger. The existing building is a single storey structure with a tiled pitched roof. On the original submitted Section AA it measures approximately 5.5 metres high. Following the Minister’s site visit the applicant was required to reduce the size of the building. It has therefore been reduced in height so that the top of the building is now no higher than the ridge of the existing property. The proposal is however of a contemporary nature and includes a flat roof. This enables a first floor to be accommodated. At the northern end of the building however, where the garage, study and sunroom are located, the building steps down to single storey. Since the original scheme was submitted the building has been reduced in size at the first floor, and brought in from the side boundaries to address the concerns originally raised by the Minister. The building can be viewed both close to by immediate neighbours and visitors to the group of houses adjacent, and also in longer views, particularly from St. Aubin. The applicant argues that the existing building is not built to current standards, is of no particular architectural merit, and that the proposed development is of a very high standard meeting the Minister’s aspirations to support high quality design, and more environmentally efficient buildings. A key issue in this case is therefore the impact upon the character of the area and the quality of the proposed building. The impact should be viewed not just immediately to the site but also within longer views, particularly from the east across the bay. Assessment of these factors and the design quality of the building are matters of judgement. Immediately adjacent there are a number of large houses of varying designs and the introduction of a new design, provided its quality is good, is not necessarily detrimental to the character of the area. The original application was submitted following a presentation of the scheme to the Design Review Group. It was considered that the design was of a high standard and in accordance with the Minister’s aspirations for good quality design. It was accepted that the building would be larger than that which exists, and that it could be viewed not only immediately adjacent, but in longer views. However, it was considered that it would be a positive feature of high quality, which it if it did set a precedent, would set a positive one for high quality design. The application was therefore recommended for approval. Since that time the scheme has been amended, improving its appearance onto the private road, and reducing its overall scale. The original design approach has however been retained. Given that the scheme has only been improved since originally submitted, the Department’s recommendation remains for approval. Reference has been made to the property now completed on the adjacent site, The Cliff. This was originally approved by the previous Committee. The Minister later had to consider small amendments to the scheme prior to construction commencing. That house replaced a previous property on the site. That property was already two storeys, and although an additional floor was added, this was achieved by lowering the building rather than raising its height by a floor, relative to the private way. The building is larger than that which previously existed on site. It should be noted that since Permission was granted for The Cliff the trees to the east (sea) side of the two properties have been reduced in height. This has exposed the lower level of The Cliff which was previously largely hidden. Design and Use of Materials As noted in the Section above, this design is considered to be of a very high quality. On the east side overlooking the sea the majority of the walls will be glazed. By contrast the western walls off the access road are more solid including a large granite panel as well as areas of render, and also metal cladding at first floor level. This helps to avoid overlooking of other properties. Window and fascias are in powder coated aluminium and balcony handrails in stainless steel. It is considered that this is a high quality approach to design and materials of the building. Impact on Neighbours The building is reasonably well separated from its neighbours to the west and so it is considered that it avoids any impact through overbearing. The design has also been amended so at first floor level the only windows facing the west are obscurely glazed. The balcony which could potentially have lead to reasonably long distance overlooking towards the west now has a balcony screen. Balcony screens are also added to both of the sides of the balconies to avoid overlooking of the properties to the north and south. It is not therefore considered that the proposals will result in any material level of overlooking which would justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Reference has also been made to a loss of amenity through a loss of view from the west. The proposal will involve new construction on the northern part of the site, which may involve some hindrance of views from the properties to the west. However, the overall height of the building as a whole has been reduced from the previous scheme, and at the northern part of the site steps down to be a single storey only. Had an application been submitted for a single storey extension on the north side of the existing building with a pitched roof to match existing, it is not considered that refusal on the grounds of the impact on adjoining properties could be sustained. The impact of the proposed development is not considered to be any different to that. Moreover, it is not the role of the Planning Law to seek to restrain development on one site to allow a view of a specific feature or landscape by another property. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The increase in the size of the property is not likely to generate a material increase in traffic to the site. Adequate car parking is provided on site. Reference has been made to difficulties of accessing the site during construction. The method of construction is not however a matter upon which the decision of whether to grant Planning Permission or not should pivot. The applicant was asked to look into the legality of access to the site and the 10 tonne weight figure on the private road. His conclusion is that there is no legal restriction in weight. He is however prepared to take measures as set out in the summary of the applicant’s letters above, to keep to this 10 tonne figure wherever possible. He is also aware of the extent of his ownership of the private way and legal rights of way, and has taken this into account with his building contractor. As noted above however, the logistics of undertaking the construction are not issues on which the decision to grant Planning Permission should rest. If there are other legal issues with regard to rights of way and ownership of particular parts of the private way, then these are matters of civil law which if necessary can be enforced by others. Foul Sewage Disposal Originally a tight tank was proposed in the absence of mains drains and the Minister required that the site be connected to mains drains. The applicant has secured a connection to mains drains which is now in place. Landscaping Issues The amended application now includes a full landscaping scheme, and it is considered that this will help the development assimilate into the landscape. The Department previously requested that any walls on the roadside and beneath the swimming pool area should be clad in granite to both reflect local materials and to reduce the apparent scale and mass of the rendered areas to the building. This has been done. Other Material Considerations The Minister asked for a number of issues around the construction of the dwelling to be addressed including the provision of mains drains, a legal assessment of the 10 tonne weight limit and the right of way to the site, as well as a reduction in the scale of the building. It is considered that these have all been addressed. A further criticism in one of the letters of objection is that the original Department’s report was flawed and it included no model, no environmental report, no access report or drainage report. None of these are normal requirements. A model has been constructed and the applicant has explained that neighbours have been invited to view this at the architect’s office. A Waste Management Plan has been submitted as part of the application. The scale of the development is beneath the threshold for a Percentage for Art feature.

Officer Recommendation	APPROVAL

Conditions/ Reasons	Architect to be retained. Façade Consultant to be appointed and retained. Construction Management Plan to be submitted. Removal of Permitted Development Rights. Landscaping scheme to be implemented in the first planting season following the commencement of construction.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan. Department’s Report on the original submission, 19 June 2007. Environmental Impact Statement. Consultation responses from the Parish of St. Brelade, 24 March 2010 and 25 June 2007, plus responses from TTS (Drainage), the Environment Department and Public Health. 9 Letters of objection. 1 letter from The National Trust. Architect’s letters of 26 February, 26 March, 29 March, 27 May, 17 June and 21 June. Applicant’s letters of 18 March and 14 April.

Endorsed by:

Date:

2 July 2010