Lomond, La Rue de Causie, St Clement: Planning Application considered by Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 8 April 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0033
Decision Summary Title	Planning Applications Panel – decisions considered by Minister		Date of Decision Summary:	8th April 2011.
Decision Summary Author:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written & Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment
Written Report Title	P/2010/0958 report to PAP		Date of Written Report:	13 January 2011
Written Report Author:	Planning Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: P/2010/0958. Lomond, La Rue de Causie, St. Clement. Construct 1 No. dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): The Minister resolved to MAINTAIN REFUSAL for the reasons set out in the Department Reported dated 13 January 2011 In considering the reasons for refusal on the Department Report the Minister required: 1. the references to the impact on Lomond to be deleted, and 2. that the unreasonable overbearing relationship with the existing properties to the south of the application site be specified. The revised reasons for refusal are therefore: 1. The proposed development does not provide enough space to enable vehicles to turn on the site and exit in a forward gear and neither is the access, at 2m, wide enough to meet the requirements of Transport and Technical Service - Highways advice for "Roads Serving Small Housing Developments." Therefore, the proposals would be prejudicial to Policies G2 (vii) & H8 (v) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 2. The siting of the proposed new unit of accommodation would create an overbearing impact to the property known as 'Tamariu', La Rue de Causie', St Clement, contrary to Policies G2 (ii) & H8 (iii) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 3 The removal of vegetation to the south and west boundaries of 'Lomond' will create loss of privacy to the amenities of the residents of the properties to the south and west of 'Lomond', resulting in an unreasonable overbearing relationship with these properties contrary to Policies G2 (ii) & H8 (iii) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 4. The proposed development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building on a back land site out of character with its context which is cramped and too close to neighbouring boundaries, which is harmful to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policies G2, G3 & H8 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister for Planning and Environment became aware that Planning Applications Panel (PAP) may not have been fully constituted for consideration of the above application and resolved to reconsider the application. The Minister considered all the relevant information including the information presented to the Planning Applications Panel. The decision to refuse permission has been upheld having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other materials considerations, including the consultations and representations received.
Resource Implications: There are no resource implications.
Action required: Issue notifications of the decision as appropriate.
Signature: Senator FE Cohen		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision

Lomond, La Rue de Causie, St Clement: Planning Application considered by Minister

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

Application Number: P/2010/0958

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Lomond, La Rue de Causie, St. Clement.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. PHickman	Agent

Description	Construct 1 No. dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development does not provide enough space to enable vehicles to turn on the site and exit in a forward gear and neither is the access, at 2m, wide enough to meet the requirements of Transport and Technical Service - Highways advice for "Roads Serving Small Housing Developments." Therefore, the proposals would be prejudicial to Policies G2 (vii) & H8 (v) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed dormers to the east elevation of the new unit would have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses by reason of visual intrusion causing loss of privacy to the residents of 'Lomond's' private amenity and habitable space, contrary to Policies G2 (ii) & H8 (iii) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 3. The siting of the proposed new unit of accommodation would create an overbearing impact to the properties known as 'Lomond' and 'Tamariu', La Rue de Causie', St Clement, contrary to Policies G2 (ii) & H8 (iii) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 4. The removal of vegetation to the south and west boundaries of 'Lomond' will create loss of privacy to the amenities of the residents of the properties to the south and west of 'Lomond', contrary to Policies G2 (ii) & H8 (iii) of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002. 5. The proposed development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building on a back land site out of character with its context which is cramped and too close to neighbouring boundaries, which is harmful to the occupiers of neighbouring properties, contrary to Policies G2, G3 & H8 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	21/09/2010

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2 - General Development Considerations H8 - Housing Development within the Built-Up Area G3 - Quality of Design The property is located within the Built-Up Area and as such Policies H8 & G2 state that new residential development will normally be permitted within the boundary of this area provided that the proposal satisfies the general development considerations highlighted within these Policies.

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Subsequent to the delegated refusal, the agent has submitted a Request for Reconsideration (see letter dated the 7th of October 2010). A summary of the case for the appeal is as follows:- The proposed new dwelling and the existing dwelling “Lomond” are served by a turning area which surrounds the feature well. We feel it is unreasonable to ask for additional on-site turning space when any cars can satisfactorily turn within this existing area and exit on to the public highway in forward gear. This indeed is how the existing parking provision to the garage to “Lomond” exits the site, and we will not be making this situation any worse with our proposals. We also feel that categorising the vehicular approach to the proposed new dwelling as an estate road is very onerous as this will only serve the new dwelling, “Lomond” and the car port to “Lomond”, and at 2.7m is more than adequate for vehicular access. i) The access and turning arrangements to the proposed new dwelling remain “tight,” relying on a narrow shared access to the rear of “Lomond.” In order for a vehicle to reach “the shared turning area around the feature well” it would have to first reverse for a distance of approximately 15 metres along the shared access. Further, the convoluted parking arrangements for the new development would mean that one of the vehicles would always be blocked in thereby creating a permanently restricted vehicular access. With regards to the dormer configuration, my client would happily omit these in lieu of velux windows to ensure that the proposals do not contravene planning policy. It is our opinion that the orientation of the proposed dwelling and the siting in relation to “Lomond” will result in little or nor overlooking from these windows. ii) The proposed new development is within 4.5m of the boundary of “Lomond” and is within 10m of the west elevation of “Lomond.” This close relationship is considered detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of both the existing property and proposed new development. My client would be willing to redesign the proposals to mitigate any overbearing impact to adjacent properties. Any impact to “Tamariu” is diminished due to the presence of existing high vegetation on the boundary, which my client is more than happy to maintain or replace to match. iii) Notwithstanding the existence of mature vegetation along the northern boundary of the new development site the proximity of the new dwelling, at approximately 1m off the southern boundary of “Tamarui,” remains a concern and would undoubtedly be overbearing in terms of massing and scale creating a detrimental affect on the quality of life of the occupants of “Tamarui”. It is my clients wish to retain the existing vegetation to the south and east boundaries to mitigate any overlooking or overbearing impact. iv) Comments noted. My client strongly disagrees with the attestation that the proposals constitute over-development of the site. “Lomond” is located in a neighbourhood with a very dense level of development of both residential and commercial nature. There is no prevailing character or architectural style, with the exception of the estate Le Grand Pre to the north and west, which consists of 1960’s terraced accommodation. v) The term “overdevelopment” is used in this instance to describe a development proposal that is considered to be too close in proximity to surrounding neighbouring boundaries thereby creating overbearing and loss of privacy concerns and is also detrimental to the amenities of “Lomond”. Further, the proposal has a convoluted access and car parking arrangement which fails to meet Transport and Technical Services -Highways advice regarding “small developments”. The decision to refuse this application was reached using the current adopted standards and guidelines of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. As it is considered that there are no new grounds on which to alter the previous decision the Department recommends that the original decision is maintained.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As stated previously.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Request for Reconsideration letter of 7th October 2010 Letters from applicant received – 27.7.10 & dated 28.7.10 Letters of representation:- Mr D Hodges, Apt. 3, Dicq Rd. – 17.7.10 Mrs JK Hidrio, 45 Le Grand Pre – 20.7.10 Advocate FJ Benest, 16 Hill St. – 23.7.10 Mr & Mrs Doxsey, 40 Le Grand Pre – 21.7.10 Consults: Transport and Technical Services – Drainage – 21.7.10 Officer Assessment sheet – 17.9.10

Endorsed by		Date