This application was originally considered in public by the Minister on 11 February and deferred for further consideration. The Minister subsequently stated that he would like to see additional consideration given to the construction method and the extent of excavation and disturbance. This decision was confirmed to objectors by letter of 22 March. Evidence of insurance would also be required including a survey of adjacent buildings, and this should be the subject of a Planning Obligation Agreement. Subsequently, the applicant employed Regal Construction Limited to look at how to address the Minister's concerns. The Minister asked that their conclusions be submitted to the relevant local politicians - Deputy Power, Deputy Jeune and Senator Ferguson, who had previously expressed an interest in the scheme and represented local concerns. Only Deputy Power attended the meeting on 20 May, and the Department asked the applicant for full copies of the presentation so that these could be sent to Deputy Jeune and Senator Ferguson. These were received on 31 May and sent to members on 10 June. Whilst no response has been received from Deputy Jeune or Senator Ferguson, a further 14 letters of objection have been received from local residents including the St Aubin's Residents Association. These continue to raise concerns including the history of, and potential for, landslides on the site, the potential danger to human safety and particularly to buildings in Quay Bisson including the Methodist Church Hall. There remain concerns with regard to possible structural damage and the need for adequate insurance and survey, loss of privacy, loss of value to properties, and an allegation that the weight limit on the road has not yet been established. It is also noted that the information submitted by Regal Construction is referred to "preliminary". Notwithstanding the volume of evidence submitted by the applicant at the request of the Minister, a number of residents remain concerned at the potential danger of construction on this site and disturbance during the construction period. The Parish in a letter of 4 July noted the concerns of local residents and concluded that the site is totally unsuitable for development. The applicant's agents have responded to these criticisms in a letter of 6 July. Since the application was deferred the 2011 Island Plan has been adopted. Policies originally referred to from the 2002 Island Plan, G2, G3, H8, BE9 and TR2 have been superseded by Policies GD1, GD7, H6, H3 and EVE2 respectively. Policy GD1 (General Development Considerations) requires development to be sustainable, encourages energy efficiency and seeks to ensure that any development provides satisfactory accommodation which is sympathetic to the character of the area and the amenity of adjacent properties. Paragraph 3c notes that development should not adversely affect the health, safety and environment of users of buildings and land by virtue of emissions to air, land, buildings and water, including light, noise, vibration, dust, odour, etc. Development should also contribute towards reducing dependence on the car and achieve a high quality of design. This last requirement is reiterated by policy GD7. The site lies within the Built-Up Area and Policy H6 states that proposals for new dwellings will be permitted within the boundary of the Built-Up Area provided that the proposal is in accordance with the required standards for housing. This, together with the desire to reduce reliance on the car, concentrates new development into designated Built-Up Areas and away from countryside areas. Policy HE3 seeks to ensure that development within a Conservation Area preserves and enhances the features which contribute positively to the area's character and states that development will only be permitted where it meets a series of criteria, including appropriate design, relationship to adjacent properties, retaining important landscape features and avoiding the loss of open areas or natural features if they are important to the character of the Conservation Area. Development should not spoil or destroy views and vistas within and out of the Conservation Area if they are important to the character of the area. The Minister must also recognise that the application was submitted under the 2002 Island Plan, and that the previous Minister did not dismiss the principle of development in his comments of 15 February 2011. The use of sites within the Built-Up Area for housing development is in accordance with the principles of the Plan. The impact on adjoining properties has been addressed in the Department's original report as has the impact upon the Conservation Area. It is not considered that this piece of land is an important open space within the Conservation Area nor that its loss would therefore necessarily have a detrimental impact upon the Conservation Area. The design is still considered to be of a high quality. The site is also a designated Tourist Destination Area but it is not considered that the development would be detrimental to the character or status of that area or in contradiction of Policy EVE2. The Department's original recommendation was to grant planning permission and the planning principles on which that recommendation were made remain. The nature of the scheme has not been materially amended thereby increasing any impact on adjacent properties, but additional information has been submitted in an attempt to reduce the impact of the development Conditions set out in the Department's original report dated 28 January are still recommended with the exception of condition 8 (retention of architect) which is no longer considered appropriate. An additional condition should be added however stating that the development must be carried out in accordance with the specification submitted by Regal Construction on 31 May unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister. | 
gov.je