In 2003 an application to replace a small chalet was approved in line with similar approvals for chalets along this unmade track. Some of these approvals are under the 1987 Island Plan. In April 2006 the Department was contacted by the architect who proposed a different scheme altogether for pre-application advice. The applicant had also purchased the adjacent site known as The Pebbles which increased the size of the available space by a similar size again. The building proposed was in a linear form and moved the dwelling away for the eastern boundary and further into to adjacent land to the west. From the outset the Case Office expressed concern that the new proposals were not ‘within the spirit’ of the original approval and had the appearance of two cottages and that the architect must make a case for the new proposals. It was suggested that photographs of similar cottages would be submitted as part of the case. An application was then submitted in June 2006 and the proposals followed the scheme that was submitted for pre-application advice. It was considered that the proposed dwelling was very large, some 63% larger than that which was approved in 2003, which in itself was much larger than that which exists on site. The architect submitted photographs of similar one room deep cottages as part of his case. It is not disputed that this type of development is traditional and typical of cottage style proposals. A number of letters of representation were received and have been submitted in response to this request for reconsideration however, it is not considered that the proposal would adversely impact on neighbouring property. In determining the application the Case Officer had regard to the history of the area and in particular the fact that the house known as Greenlands to the west of the application site, was built as a replacement for a dwelling that formally occupied the site known as The Pebbles and the removal of The Pebbles was a condition of the construction of Greenlands. (This has been referred to in one of the letters of representation. In 2004 an application to build new dwelling on the site of The Pebbles was refused and a request for reconsideration was also refused.) Because of the size, design and position of the proposed dwelling, and the fact that the Case Officer had already given pre-application advice that the new proposals was not ‘within the spirit’ of the original approval, the application was discussed between the Principal Planner and the Director of Planning where the history was outlined including the information relating to the Pebbles. The architect submitted a great deal of information relating to the dwellings that had been approved in support of the case which referred to the size of the replacement dwellings and the plot sizes themselves. See attached. It is not considered that these are necessarily relevant to his case. His argument is that now that the size of the land available has increased the new dwelling can be larger and take the form as submitted rather than the ‘squat 1970’s style granite clad bungalows with rooms in the roof’. (These designs had been agreed by the previous Committees as resembling ‘fishermen’s cottages’ and accorded with the original design brief set out by Committee). However the primary argument was not that the fact that it appears that development is taking place contrary to an agreement between previous Committees and a previous owner, although the architect states that he understood from the Director that is was. The primary concern was the fact that the proposed dwelling was much larger than the original approval, and the original chalet, in the Countryside Zone, took a different form which gave it the appearance of 2 dwellings and moved too far westwards because of the form proposed. This is a borderline case and the Department is aware that it is not necessarily appropriate to be locked into what has been approved or gone before. However it is considered that in this particular case there is not sufficient justification for a replacement building of the size proposed, but there may be a case for the design approach. If the Minister is minded to allow development on this combined site it is still the view of the Department that the size is unacceptable in this location in the Countryside Zone and it not therefore in accordance with Policies C6, G2, G3 and G15 of the Island Plan 2002. | 
gov.je