Department of the Environment 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.)Department of the Environment
Up-date Report for Ministerial Meeting
This Report follows the Ministerial Meeting of 7th November 2011, and should be read in conjunction with the Department report dated 28th October 2011, as previously presented to the Minister.
For completeness, a copy of the 28th October Department report is appended to this Up-Date Report, as is a copy of the Minute of the 7th November Ministerial Meeting.
At the 7th November Meeting, the applicant confirmed they would be submitting a revised proposal for a 6-storey development. The Minister expressed his support, in principle, for 6-storey development and stated the application would be dealt with as quickly as possible.
In this regard, the relevant resubmission of the revision proposal has been received by the Department and was re-advertised by display of Site and JEP Notices with the statutory 21-day consultation period expiring on 6th December 2011.
The Minister undertook a Site Visit, accompanied by the case officer, on 15th December 2011.
This Up-Date report considers the revised proposals and the feedback from the consultation period.
Summary Department Recommendation | The revised proposal has addressed most of the concerns expressed in the original Department Report – with the key factors being the removal of 2 storeys and reconsideration of the façade treatments, so enabling the scale and mass of the proposed building to sit more comfortably in its sensitive context. The application still includes the loss of some heritage assets, and in isolation this is a difficult issue to accept. However, when the proposal is considered in its full context and as a complete package, the significant positive elements (including design excellence, environmental credentials, the sustainable location, delivery of the pedestrian link and the package of Percentage for Art, Skills and Training, and Green Transport initiatives) are now considered to outweigh the remaining concerns, and subject to appropriate mitigation and conditions, the proposal can be supported. APPROVE |
Proposed Development | The application has been reduced in height by the removal of the top two floors, to be 6-storeys plus roof plant. The floorspace now comprises 38,977 sq m (gross) / 24,877 sq m (net) (419, 560 sq ft / 267,789 sq ft). The other key changes from the original submission are: - ROOF – the roof area now includes an element of plant and machinery. Whilst the majority remains in the basement, in the original application the roof plant was recessed within the top floor, this is no longer the case. In order to access the plant, the roof also contains provision for 2 service lifts (east and west phases) within the glazed atrium, and a stair tower. Given that service access is necessary, the roof is landscaped, including raised planters, and access for the occupants is provided.
- COMMERCIAL STREET – this elevation has been ‘modulated’ with different façade treatments and colours, to better reflect the historic plot widths. At higher levels the cladding is inset and of a finer form, so that glazing is more dominant, resulting in a lighter appearance. These forms are also wrapped from the elevations to the flanks of the building, so that the overall mass is reduced. The Commercial Street elevation is also now better grounded, to reduce the perception of being solely a service entrance.
- ATRIUM – the applicant has confirmed (letter of 11 November) that the new walkway will be open to the public from early in the morning through to the evening (6am to 10pm) for seven days a week, although perhaps more limited on Sundays. The applicant has also confirmed they have discussed ideas with the Town Centre Manager, and Parish, including market traders having occasional pitches, plus use as community performance space, perhaps linked to themed events, such as the Battle of Flowers.
- BROAD STREET – the applicant has revised the façade treatment and presented a supplementary document to explain the rationale for their proposals. This submission includes proposals to give the Broad Street elevation more depth (so minimising the perception of a ‘stage set’) and to introduce further Jersey relevance into the reformed elevations.
- WASTE MANAGEMENT – a preliminary Waste Management Statement has been submitted, which emphasises the objectives of reducing, reusing and recycling waste, to so minimise disposal to landfill.
- SUNPATH ANALYSIS – in response to a representation from the first consultation period, the applicant has now submitted a Sunpath Analysis Report which considers the situation in relation to residents at 2 Charing Cross. The conclusion is that when compared to the existing conditions, the proposed situation does not unreasonably compromise the sunlight / daylight of the subject property.
|
Consultations | T&TS Highways responded to the original application in a memorandum dated 26 October, which included a request for a contribution towards improved public transport provision. Since the November Ministerial Meeting TTS have quantified their request, and this has been subject to further detailed dialogue with the applicant (discussed in later sections of this Report). T&TS Solid Waste in their email of 13 December confirm that the approach described in the Waste Management Plan is standard and covers the main issues. They add that they would like to see the commitment to continuing evolution of the waste management plan and subsequent reporting made conditional if this is possible. Historic Environment Team of DoE in its memo dated 15 December 2011 express a continued objection to the scheme and urge its refusal. The proposal is considered detrimentally disruptive to the heights, plot patters and grain of the medieval core of St Helier, and contrary to the intention to produce a Conservation Area. If the Department are minded to recommend approval, then a number of conditions are recommended. Department Architect (Jim Greaves, Senior Partner, Hopkins Architects – acting as Architectural Advisor, due to conflicted Department Architect) – by email dated 13th December expresses two concerns: I – the top floor of the Broad Street elevation should be set back by a full building width, so the gable elevation reads like the end of the row of historic buildings abutting a more modern office. I think the set back is inadequate and needs to be more in the order of 7 metres (i.e. a traditional house depth). II - the elevation of Broad Street is misleading as it does not show any of the larger building behind. Otherwise, the details (materials etc) can be dealt with by conditions. Advise agents/applicant’s response if one or more has been made All consultations are attached with the background papers |
Representations | Two letters of representation have been received to the revised submission. The applicant has responded to each individually. Andre Ferrari – 28th November 2011 – objects on the basis of the demolition works to Broad Street, both in relation to the pair of Potential Listed Buildings at Nos. 35 and 37, but also Nos. 31 and 33, which are considered worthy of retention. Further commentary is submitted in relation to the balance between the demolition and loss of the referenced structures not being an appropriate trade-off with the positives delivered by proposed development. Emphasis is also given to the desire to work with the applicant and enable the rescue and restoration of the historic buildings as part of the development. Applicant Response – the applicant has forwarded a ‘Technical Note’ by MS Planning, which refers to the processes of heritage protection, and reverts to the information within the original submission. Societe Jersiaise – 28th October 2011 [possibly incorrectly dated – received in Department on 2nd December] urges rejection of the six storey application on the basis of height and mass, and further that it is contrary to other strategic and details planning policies. Specifically, they question whether the development can be delivered without the proposed level of demolition (in relation to the histories environment assets, and the wider sustainability issues). They reinforce their view that a smaller scale development can better relate to the grain. Further concern is expressed about the loss of retail floorspace, and question the need for further office development. They question whether the short term economic arguments from the applicant are in the long term interest of the Island. Applicant Response – a further ‘Technical Note’ is provided with commentary on the character of the area, emphasising the environmental credentials of the proposed redevelopment and confirming the reduction in height. Council for the Protection of Jersey’s Heritage – 30 November 2011 – object to the revised application, and reiterate the concerns expressed in their original representation. They wish to see the retention and refurbishment of Nos. 35 and 37 Broad Street, and are wholly opposed to the demolition of Nos. 31 and 33, including the cottage behind. By letter of 21st November 2011 the applicant has also responded to representations from the original consultation period, from John Bisson on behalf of both 65 King Street Ltd, and his own firm, Appleby. They clarify that the amount of car parking on the site will be reduced from its current level, confirm the height has been reduced and provide a policy-by-policy response to the issues raised. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers |
Planning Assessment a)Policy Considerations | The original Department Report provides a review of the policy framework within the Jersey Island Plan 2011. The key policy concerns in the original Report related to: SP7 – Better by Design GD1 – General Development Considerations GD2 – Demolition and Replacement of Buildings GD7 – Design Quality HE1 – Protecting Listed Buildings and Places HE5 – Preservation of Archaeological Resources BE1 – Town Centre Vitality BE5 – Tall Buildings WM1 – Waste Minimisation and New Development A review of the pertinent changes in the revised proposals against the key policy requirements is included in the next stages of this Report. |
b)Size, scale Form and Siting | The revised proposals have significantly reduced the actual mass, by removing two floors, and the changes have also reduced the apparent mass by re-articulating key elevations. In particular Commercial Street and the side flanks have now been modulated to reduce the perception of large structures, and better work with the traditional plot widths. This is also the case with the vertical treatment of the facades, which maintains the perception of lighter upper floors, and reduces heavy cornice lines, so reducing the perception of height. It is important to note that the building will not be hidden – the upper levels will certainly be visible in key street views, as shown in the submitted photomontages. The Broad Street frontage is clearly the most sensitive, both in relation to its existing context, and by reference to the nature of the proposed works. In response to the original concerns, the applicant has produced a supplementary design document which outlines further design changes to deal with the three-dimensional depth of the frontage (particularly at the entrance) to alter the proportions of elevations, and to introduce specific Jersey-relevance to the facades. This can be further enhanced by conditions which would confirm larger scale details of (for example) the shopfront treatments, depth of reveals, and quality of materials. The previous Department Report also referenced the assessment of the area within the 2005 Willie Miller Urban Character Appraisal, and the objectives for future development which were set out within that document. In this regard, the revised proposal; sits comfortably within the 6-storey parameter set out for the Commercial Street element of the site, and 4-storeys for the Town Centre Character Area. The revised approach also aligns more comfortably with the advice of the Jersey Architecture Commission, that maximum height should be six commercial storeys. Whilst the Department are not dismissing the scale and sensitivities of the proposal (as a substantial mass on an important site) the revised drawings do show how the proposal is justified in the policy context and demonstrate how the scale and mass can more comfortably sit within its context and better relate to the historic town centre grain. |
c)Architectural Design and Use of Materials | The general design approach remains as per the original submission, and the positive changes to the facades have already been noted. One of the key elements of the submission has always been the atrium, and specifically its public use as a pedestrian link. The revised drawings show how this space has been treated with different surfacing materials and design enhancements (such as the use of water, and the inclusion of historic foreshore lines) work very well to change the perception of this route from a corporate office entrance, to a more welcoming, interesting and traditional street. This is further supplemented by a statement explaining the potential use of the space by the community, tenants and other town centre traders. The Department are of the view that the changes, specifically to the Broad Street elevation and the use / treatment of the atrium are welcome alterations and represent a suitable presentation of these key interfaces. As a high quality conclusion, these aspects of the proposal off-set some of the concerns (as expressed in the original Department Report) about the loss of some of the heritage assets on the site. This matter is considered further in later sections of this Report. |
d) Impact In the Landscape/Street | As set out earlier, although the building has been reduced in height, it will still be visible in street-level and longer views around the town centre. However, the visible elements have been reconsidered, so that their impacts are less, both in terms of their scale, and their nature (in relation to the altered elevational treatments to break up the mass). The revised proposal, including the changes to the elevations, particularly Broad Street) are such that the proposal will sit relatively comfortably within the surrounding forms, so limiting the impacts on the historic centre of St Helier. |
e) Impact on Neighbours | In the original consultation period the Department received representations from neighbours which identified the mass as a key concern. With the removal of the top two floors the mass has been significantly reduced, and the impacts will therefore be less. The most sensitive receptors are likely to be residential occupiers, rather than office users, and in this regard the applicant has provided a Sunpath Analysis Report which considers the situation in relation to residents at 2 Charing Cross. The conclusion is that when compared to the existing condition (provided by the flank wall of the adjacent Barclays building) the proposed situation does not unreasonably compromise the sunlight / daylight of the subject property. Given the submission of this additional information, the Department are content that the impacts on neighbours are not unreasonable. |
f) Access, Car Parking & Highways Considerations | The original Department Report noted the access and car parking arrangements were generally acceptable. The Report also noted that the consultation response from T&TS Highways identified a requirement for a contribution to improved public transport facilities, which at that time had not been quantified. Since the Ministerial Meeting the relevant figures have been received, and the matter has been subject to discussion between the applicant and T&TS. The issue has its roots in Policy TT8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011, and relates in particular to the existing bus service being over-subscribed at peak times. As such, T&TS are of the view that the developer should contribute to improving the capacity. The developer has responded, pointing out that the proposal performs successfully in relation to sustainable transport objectives; the issues are of capacity, rather than frequency or proximity, and that the likely J1 tenants are already town centre occupiers, so the trip numbers will not be new and are already on the network. They are of the view that the request essentially ‘double-counts’ the objective of ensuring a modal shift away from the private car, which is delivered in the proposals, and then is also requiring a further contribution to improving bus capacity. T&TS have responded by pointing out that the relocation of existing town centre tenants will result in empty space elsewhere, which will (probably) be back-filled by other tenants, therefore the J1 development represents the ‘net’ increase in floorspace, and should be treated accordingly. Further, the modal shift is being supported by (for example) the provision of cycle spaces, and the same support should be given to those who will shift from the car to public transport. The Department are cognisant of the arguments for and against the policy requirements being applied, and are particularly conscious that the request for a financial contribution from T&TS relates to the general ‘pump priming’ of additional peak hour services. In this regard the Department are of the view that the objectives of Policy TT8 can be supported by enhancing the requirements of a tenant-specific Green Travel Plan, which focuses the commitment more reasonably on the development itself. |
g) Foul Sewage & Surface Water Disposal | No change from original Department Report – T&TS Drainage have confirmed that detailed design can achieve their technical requirements. |
h) Landscaping | As set out earlier, the hard landscaping proposals for the atrium pedestrian route have been significantly enhanced. Landscaped areas are proposed for the roof terraces and the treatment / use of these spaces can be dealt with by conditions. |
i) Archaeology | The position remains the same as recorded in the original Department Report – the submitted Archaeological DBA recommends trial trenching and mitigating works. |
j)Waste Management | The original submission has now been supplemented by a preliminary Waste Management Statement which is considered acceptable by TTS Solid Waste and which emphasises the objectives of reducing, reusing and recycling waste, to minimise the disposal to landfill. This document will need to be added to by a specific contractor prior to the commencement of development. |
k)Planning Obligations & Percent for Art | The applicant has revised their Percentage for Art proforma to reflect the changes in floorspace within the application – with the proposal remaining the same as previously outlined. Throughout the progression of the application, the applicant has emphasised the economic importance of the proposal in relation to stimulating the local building industry. The applicant has confirm they would be willing to contribute to a ‘Skills and Training Plan’ with the intention of supporting of the need to stimulate Jersey’s economic growth and the need for training Jersey residents in skills related to the property development sector. The details would be for future clarification, but may include both direct contributions and organisational support. As referenced earlier, the applicant will also be required to provide a Travel Plan, which at this stage will be a framework document to be developed in detail by the final tenants, which will outline how the shift to alternative modes of transport other than the private car will be supported through initiatives and incentives provide by the landlord or employer. |
l)Contaminated Land | No change from the original Report – this matter can be dealt with by conditions. |
m) Sustainability | No change from the original Report. |
n) Other Matters | RETAIL POLICY The original Report identified several concerns in relation to retail policy, including Policies BE1, ER1 and ER2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and set out the relevant issues. In the revised proposals the applicant has (as explained earlier) provided an indication of the management and use of the atrium space as a mechanism for delivering new vitality and viability to this area. It is also notable that the ground floor units within the development have now been confirmed as “retail” where previously they were annotated as “offices / retail”. In this regard the area of new retail space is likely to exceed the area of comparable shops / cafes which are proposed to be lost on Broad Street, and represents reasonable mitigation. |
| |
Conclusion | The original Department Report, considered at the Ministerial Meeting in early November, identified the key positive and negative factors within the application, and came to the conclusion that when considered as a complete package the positive factors failed to outweigh the negative factors – most particularly the loss of key heritage assets, and the detrimental impact on grain and character from the proposed height, mass and form. In the revised submission the applicant has taken major steps to address the key concerns, including removing the top two floors, and rearticulating the facades so that the mass is modulated and the identified impacts are reduced. The objections to the proposal, including the revised submission, have predominantly been from Heritage groups, and focused mainly on the scale and form in relation to the historic grain (as reviewed earlier) and the loss of the cottage to the rear of No. 33 Broad Street, and the façadism proposed for the pair of buildings at Nos. 35 and 37 Broad Street. A considerable emphasis was also placed on these issues in the responses received to the original consultation period. The application includes for the active re-use of the former sea wall as an integral and interesting part of the redevelopment proposal, but the works to other heritage assets are more radical. The alignment of the atrium and the concept of an east and west arrangement of the building provides little option for maintaining the pair at 35 and 37 Broad Street, however, they are preserved as part of the street scene, and a detailed case has been provided in relation to the value of the balance of the structures. The cottage to the rear of 33 Broad Street is similarly considered by a heritage appraisal, and its context, location and scale means that it cannot reasonably be accommodated within the redevelopment. These are difficult heritage issues, and are considerable negative factors in the determination of the application. In isolation they cause obvious conflict with important objectives, however, the determination of the proposals has to be taken in a balanced manner, across the full range of relevant issues. In this regard the range of positive factors as set out in this and the original Department Report, including the revised scale and form, design excellence, environmental credentials, the sustainable location, delivery of the pedestrian link and the package of Percentage for Art, Skills and Training, and Green Transport initiatives come together to weigh in favour of supporting the application. |
Department Recommendation | APPROVE |
Conditions See attached schedule of Draft Conditions and Reasons
Reason for
Approval The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard to all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policy # of the 2002 Island Plan, in which (insert thrust of policy). In this case, the proposed (insert type of work, e.g. extension) is regarded as acceptable because…
In addition, the representations raised to the scheme on the grounds of (insert grounds) have been assessed. However, it is considered that the proposal accords with the terms of Policy #) of the 2002 Island Plan, in that it does not have an unreasonable impact on (specify the concern).
18. Background
Papers Original Department Report
Minute from Ministerial Meeting
Letters of representation from readvertisement period
Consultation feedback from readvertisement period
Responses from agent / applicant
Endorsed by: | Date: 16th December 2011 |
gov.je