With reference to the Agent’s letter dated 5th July 2006-09-04 and Applicants letter dated 23rd June 2006. 1) The Agent states that the separate unit/flat has been in existence for more than forty years with enclosed correspondence from the applicant to explain this. The applicant’s letter covers Mrs Baghiani and her parents ownership of this property. They say that initially when they bought the property it was used for 5 lodgers and the separate flat was rented out later to a Mr & Mrs Enzo Carignani, they were replaced in the 1980’s by Mr & Mrs Teixieras. When Mr & Mrs Baghiani moved in 1998 (Mr & Mrs Teixieras moved out) her mother moved into the flat until her death in 1999. At that point the flat and house were rented separately. It also says in the letter that they can provide contact addresses for these people if necessary. However, the information and details supplied are circumstantial and no other evidence has been supplied, such as dated utility bills, driving licence or other written and dated material. Therefore, it cannot be established with any degree of certainty, especially with no site planning history, that the flat has been continually used as a single residential unit for over the past forty-year period and would require planning permission. 2) The Agent also says that the ‘Planning Policy Note No.6 A Minimum Specification for New Housing Developments’ does not apply to this development as it is not a new housing development. With reference to point 1), the history of the flat is unclear. Either way, the desire to provide a reasonable quality of amenity space is relevant. 3) The Agent considers that the proposed scheme would have sufficient amenity and is acceptable as this is not a new housing development. With reference to point 2), the small rear yard is used by both properties at present and covers 39.2m2. The proposal would leave a private area of 8.8m2 for the flat and 19.2 m2 for the house (with no privacy). The minimum housing standards requires 20m2 for non-family flats, the proposal is less than 50% of this and therefore is not acceptable in terms of the guidance and policy. 4) Parking standards were also mentioned by the Agent as ‘not being relevant’ as the house and flat are already in existence. The lack of parking was not a reason for refusal. 5) The applicant has also mentioned other properties along West Park Avenue that have had similar extensions. The only relevant property which relates to this site is No.13 which was given permission (12363) for an extension for the owner whilst the building was used as a guest house. Then planning permission (12363/D) was given to make that accommodation into a flat, as the building had ceased to be a guest house. Although the extension and conversion to a flat at No.13 would seem similar to that of the proposal at No.17, there are some differences to these two properties, as the conversion at No.13 was tied by a ‘Corpus Fundi’ condition and it was a conversion not an extension. This was also carried out prior to the introduction of the new Jersey Island Plan 2002. Policy PPN6 however has not changed from that period. | 
gov.je