Inspector’s Report – Appeal by Mr Basil Maurice Jeanne - Ref. P/2015/1022
PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002 (as amended)
Appeal under Article 108 against a decision made under Article 19 to refuse planning permission
REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
made under Article 115(5)
by D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA Solicitor
the inspector nominated under Article 113(2) from the list of persons appointed under Article 107
______________________________________________________
Appellant:
Mr Basil Maurice Jeanne
Application reference number and date:
P/2015/1022 dated 30 June 2015
Decision Notice date:
12 November 2015
Site address:
Belle Hougue, La Route des Cotes du Nord, Trinity, JE3 5BJ
Development proposed:
“Demolish various structures and construct store to North-West of site with associated earthworks.”
Inspector’s site visit date:
10 May 2016
Hearing date:
11 May 2016
______________________________________________________
Introduction
- This is an appeal by the applicant against the refusal of planning permission for the development described above, under delegated powers and on review.
- The reason given for the refusal of planning permission is as follows:
“The development proposed, because of its size, location and impact is not considered to be modest and proportionate to other buildings on the site and would seriously harm the landscape character of this part of the Green Zone, contrary to Policy NE7 of the 2011 Island Plan which presumes against all forms of new development for whatever purpose.”
The case for the appellant
- The appellant disagrees with the interpretation of Policy NE 7 which is given in the reason for refusal and maintains that the store will be inconspicuous, and not harmful to either the character of the area or his neighbour’s amenities. He draws a parallel with the decision made on 4 November 2015 to approve what he maintains is a similar development in the Green Zone at Maison de Haut, La Verte Rue, Trinity (ref: P/2015/1450).
- The appellant states that the store will be used to accommodate go-karts and motorcycles used by his son, who competes in these sports as a hobby. He states that the store is an alternative to the construction of the extension to the garage, which was granted planning permission on 1 March 2016 (ref: P/2016/0070). He accepts that a planning condition should be imposed to prevent the two developments from both being carried out.
The case for the Department of the Environment
- The Department state that the key issue is the acceptability of the proposed development when it is assessed against Policy NE 7 (Green Zone). They state that Policy NE 7 sets a general presumption against development but does allow for certain exceptions, including an ancillary outbuilding such as that proposed, provided it is modest and proportionate, well sited and designed, and does not seriously harm landscape character. Their assessment is that the proposed development would be harmful and does not satisfy the policy.
- The Department state that the development proposed at Maison de Haut was assessed on its merits. They state that Maison de Haut is a large site, the proposed building will be smaller than the store proposed at Belle Hougue and there are no existing outbuildings there.
Representations made by an interested person
- Four communications have been received from an occupier of Terra Ferma during the processing of the application and the appeal. The first asks that no windows be installed in the south side of the store. The later ones maintain that there is uncertainty about the proposal, that the store would be used for the storage of spares for large vehicles and that the garden would be levelled out. The proposed garage extension (now approved) is preferred to the store, since it would be further away. Concerns are also raised about commercial traffic in the locality and the use of motocross bikes in the fields.
Inspector’s assessments and conclusions
The main issues in the appeal
- The main issues in the appeal are (a) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, with particular reference to the Green Zone and the application of Policy NE 7, and (b) its effect on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling, Terra Ferma. I deal with these issues in turn in the following paragraphs.
The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings, with particular reference to the Green Zone and the application of Policy NE 7
- Belle Hougue is a house within a small group of dwellings occupying substantial sites on both sides of the road in this part of La Route des Cotes du Nord. The group of dwellings is surrounded by open countryside.
- The proposed development would be within what is currently used as part of the enlarged garden area of Belle Hougue and would not extend beyond the existing field boundaries. It would replace two timber sheds situated in the north-west corner of the site, which are used to house the property’s borehole purification system and garden machinery. The garden has been extended over the years to the west of the boundary that was defined in a 2006 planning permission, without encroaching on to the countryside. Aerial photographs show that the two timber sheds have been in place since 2007 and the Department stated at the hearing that no action would be taken in respect of them.
- There is a difference in levels between this corner of the site and the hardstanding and circulation area at the rear of the house next to its garage. The “earthworks” referred to in the application involve minor engineering operations to create a level vehicular access in to the store from this area and to regrade the existing slope.
- As a result, the store would be partially sunk into the adjoining land. On its elevations adjoining the field boundaries, only the upper parts of the walls and the roof would be above ground level and little would be seen of them from the fields because of the substantial hedgerows that exist on the field boundaries. There would be no view of the store from the road.
- The floor area of the store would be somewhat large, at 60.59m², for a domestic outbuilding. However, it would replace two smaller buildings and the Belle Hougue site is a substantial size; it has sufficient space to accommodate an outbuilding of this scale, in addition to the garage as it exists at present, without compromising the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.
- The objective stated in Policy NE 7 is to give the Green Zone “a high level of protection from development”. However, its application in practice is far from straightforward, as is illustrated by the uncompromising wording of the Department’s reason for refusal (paragraph 2 above) and the more measured approach the Department took in their appeal statement (paragraph 5 above).
- The reasoned justification for the policy, as set out in paragraphs 2.120 and 2.121 of the Plan, provides a helpful introduction to its application in this appeal. It points to “a need to provide for the reasonable expectation of residents to improve their homes … having regard to the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development without serious harm”. It states that the policy “sets a presumption but not an absolute moratorium against development within the Green Zone: the key test is the capacity of the site and its context to accommodate development without serious harm to landscape character”, and it adds: “This is the starting point for the consideration of development proposals”.
- Accordingly, paragraph 2 of Policy NE 7 allows for an exception to made for an ancillary residential building where it would (a) be “modest and proportionate to other buildings on the site”, (b) be “well sited and designed, relative to other buildings, the context, size, material, colour and form” and (c) would “not seriously harm landscape character”.
- Applying the policy considerations in this instance, it seems to me that the appellant has a reasonable expectation to be allowed to construct a store sufficient to meet his and his family’s normal domestic needs, which in this instance include the storage requirements relating to his son’s hobby. This expectation is subject to the provisos that the store should comply with the detailed criteria in paragraph 2 of the policy and that the landscape should have the capacity to accommodate the development without serious harm to its character. For the reasons I have given in paragraphs 9 to 13 above, in my opinion the detailed criteria would be satisfied in this instance and there would not be a significant change in the character of the landscape.
The effect of the proposed development on the amenities of the occupiers of Terra Ferma
- The Belle Hougue site is L-shaped and extends behind Terra Ferma, which is an adjoining house on this side of the road. The store would be in the north-west corner of the site, a considerable distance away from Terra Ferma, which adjoins the site’s south-eastern boundary. Terra Ferma has only low-level secondary windows on the side facing the site and the plans do not show any windows in the proposed store. The changes to the levels on the site would leave the area adjacent to Terra Ferma undisturbed. In these respects, the proposed development would not have a harmful impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Terra Ferma.
- The appeal relates to a store to be used for residential purposes ancillary to the house, and not for any commercial purposes. The introduction of commercial activities could be disturbing to the occupiers of Terra Ferma and the Department have recommended that this possibility should be precluded by a planning condition.
- The concerns raised about commercial traffic in the locality and the use of motocross bikes in the fields are not related to the proposed development. The appellant has, however, explained that the concerns probably arise from commercial operations on other sites in the vicinity and from the use of nearby land each year for a two-day organised motorcycle trial event.
Overall conclusion
- My overall conclusion is that the proposed development would comply with Policy NE 7 and would not have an adverse impact on residential amenities. There are in my view insufficient reasons to withhold planning permission, subject to the considerations in paragraphs 22 to 24 below. I have come to this conclusion after assessing the proposed development on its own merits and not by comparison with the development approved at Maison de Haut.
Planning conditions
- I consider that three planning conditions should be attached to the planning permission. The first is the standard time limit; the second will ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans; and the third will restrict the use of the store to ancillary residential purposes, to protect the amenities of nearby residents.
- I note that the store is an alternative to the construction of the approved extension to the garage and that the appellant has agreed to a planning condition preventing the two developments from both being carried out. The Department have also put forward such a condition, in the event of the appeal being allowed. In my view, a restriction of this nature is justified, since the cumulative impact of the two developments may not comply with Policy NE 7.
- However, it is doubtful whether the implementation of an existing planning permission can be prevented by attaching a condition to a later planning permission relating to a separate development on a different part of a site (*). The objective could, however, be achieved by the appellant entering by agreement into a planning obligation not to carry out the construction of the garage extension; the planning permission for the store would then be issued subject only to the three conditions referred to in paragraph 22 above. I have therefore recommended that the grant of planning permission should be made subject to the appellant entering into such an obligation.
*(This is notwithstanding the wide powers in Article 23 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 to attach planning conditions, since such a condition would be tantamount to revoking an existing planning permission, without paying the compensation due under Article 27.)
Inspector’s recommendations
- I recommend that in exercise of the powers contained in Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended): -
(i) the appeal be allowed in full; and
(ii) subject to the appellant entering into a planning obligation pursuant to Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended) that precludes the construction of the garage extension approved on 1 March 2016 (ref: P/2016/0070), planning permission be granted for development at Belle Hougue, La Route des Cotes du Nord, Trinity, JE3 5BJ consisting of the demolition of structures and the construction of a store in the north-west part of the site with associated earthworks, in accordance with the application ref: P/2015/1022 dated 30 June 2015, subject to the following conditions: -
- The development shall commence within 5 years of the decision date.
Reason: Standard time limit to facilitate reconsideration of the development in the light of any material change in circumstances.
- The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, drawings, written details and documents which form part of this permission.
Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved.
- The store shall only be used for the purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, Belle Hougue, as such, and for no other purpose.
Reason: To protect the amenities of nearby residents.
Dated 27 May 2016
D.A.Hainsworth
Inspector
gov.je