Introduction In 2005 an application was submitted for the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes. Whilst your Officers and the Sub Committee considered that the development was too large to result in the significant environmental improvements required by Policies C5 and G15 of the Island Plan, given the nature of the scheme – traditionally designed buildings in a courtyard form – and the potential improvement to the character of the area, it was agreed that the applicant should be given the opportunity to amend their scheme. Whilst an amended scheme was submitted this too was considered too large to achieve significant environmental improvements, and further amendments have been requested. That application remains live and your Officers hope that the applicant and their agent will take Officers advice and reduce the scheme further to a point where it can be recommended for Planning Permission. One of the applicant’s arguments in support of the residential scheme is that it would result in the loss of a commercial motor transport workshop on site. The original Planning Permission for the change of use of this building to a motor transport workshop, was however subject to a number of restrictive conditions, which the applicant is now requesting be rescinded. The first, Condition 4, notes that the Permit grants only temporary Permission expired on 30 June 1981. The second, Condition 5, notes that the Permission shall enure for the benefit of Ronez Limited only, and shall not be transferred to any other person, business or company without the prior written consent of the Island Development Committee. In dealing with the residential scheme therefore the Department and Planning Sub Committee concluded that the authorised use of this site is relatively low key, and although reasons for Conditions were not included on Permits until relatively recently, it is evident from a note on file from the Officer at the time, and from a letter submitted by Ronez Limited, dated 20 May 1976, that Permission was granted on the basis that the use would be relatively low key. In particular Ronez’s letter notes that heavy quarrying equipment and dump trucks would not be maintained on site; that the Company’s fleet of vehicles numbered 40, but was to be reduced to 20 by the end of 1976, that no more than 5 vehicles would be on site at any one time, and that none would be left in the open. Therefore, whilst the description “motor transport workshop” may conjure images of a very intensive and noisy commercial enterprise, due to the nature of the proposal at the time, and the Conditions imposed, the use of the site is relatively low key. Objections 1 objection has been received following the advertisement of the Request for Reconsideration. It is enclosed as a background paper, but in particular notes concern at the suggestion of reverting back to a commercial use of the site in place of the residential development which was recently proposed. Consultations Public Health – No objections or requirements. Comments on Case The original letter from MS Planning dated 14 March 2006 is attached, as is their response to the objection received, dated 2 May 2006. With regard to the temporary nature of the Permit, (Condition 2) reference is made to U.K. Law, which prohibits enforcement action after a number of years and therefore enables an applicant/owner to apply for a certificate of lawfulness. This however does not form part of the current Planning Law in Jersey. It is evident however that the use of the building had continued well beyond 1981, and it would appear unreasonable to enforce the Condition now, and require the use to cease. Your Officers therefore recommend that this Condition be removed from the Permit. With regard to Condition 5 (Permission personal to Ronez Limited), your Officers’ opinion is that this was imposed on the basis of the nature of the use as explained by Ronez Limited in their own letter supporting the application in 1976. Whilst it is common practice to impose personal Conditions, when absolutely necessary and Permission could not be granted otherwise, your Officers agree with the Appellant that provided another party undertook the operations on site in precisely the same way as was proposed by Ronez in 1976, that it would be reasonable to remove the restriction to use solely by Ronez Limited. As worded the Condition does allow for alternative companies or persons to operate from the site, if this is agreed in writing by the Island Development Committee, or its successors. If such a request were made today, your Officers would ask for detailed information on precisely how the use would operate from the site, to ensure that the use was no greater than that originally approved. It is possible therefore to retain this Condition, which does not prevent the owners of the site from approaching the Department and suggesting alternative users for the site. Alternatively, a new Permit could be issued which rather than specify Ronez as the only user, sets out the nature of use considered acceptable. This for example could allow for a “motor transport workshop”, but limit the number of vehicles being worked on to 5 at any one time, prohibiting any external storage or display, and adding additional Conditions to clarify no sales from the site, no advertisements permitted and no subdivision of the site. | 
gov.je