Comments on Case | The first reason for refusal is Policy TT28 presumption against the creation of private non-residential car parks with public access. The agent argues that this reason for refusal is unreasonable because there have been previous approvals in St Helier for private car parks. However each planning application is judged on its individual merits particular to each application’s context and circumstance, and the “previous approvals” argument is not sufficient justification to approve against strong policy presumptions. The building could be used for many uses (other than private car parking) which the Island Plan either supports or does not resist. The concern is approving a use that there is a specific presumption against in the Island Plan, in Policy TT28. This reason carries the most weight in considering the proposal. The second reason for refusal is Policy BE3 and the potential loss to the vitality and viability of the town of St Helier. The agent argues that the building has the potential to become vacant if parking is not approved, and thus would add nothing to the vitality of the area. However, the same argument could be applied to a private car park. A private car park adds as little vitality to the area as a vacant building, but has the added disadvantage of promoting commuters into the town of St Helier without any benefit to the town itself. The Department has no control over whether the owner chooses to let the building become vacant, but the prospect of the owner deciding to do so is not justification for the Department to sanction a non-active use, for which there is a presumption against in the Island Plan. The threat of a worse use, such as a vacant building, does not provide sufficient justification that specific (and clear) Island Plan policies should be waived. The agent suggests that an active use is unimportant in the subject location, given the current sate of the neighbourhood. It is true that the subject location, James Street, is not as active as other town streets, but again, this is not justification to sanction non-active uses in the area, which will only serve to perpetuate the decline of James Street in the short term. Further to this, James Street is located on the edge of the town centre and adjoins Minden Place, a vibrant and active street for pedestrians. Thus, the currently perceived non-active status may have more to do with the current land uses and less to do with its location. To this end, resisting non-active uses in this area becomes more important for promoting the vitality and vibrancy of the area. The request is for a temporary timeframe of 5 years, until the redevelopment of the Odeon Cinema/ Bath Street area begins. Notwithstanding the fact that 5 years is not considered short term, the concern is that this 5 year timescale has the potential to significantly increase. The Odeon Cinema/ Bath Street redevelopment is still in planning stage and has been for a number of years. The reality is that it is unlikely that the redevelopment of this area will be substantially commenced before 5 years, and that a request to further extend the temporary timeframe will be difficult to resist if permission is granted in the first instance. The third reason for refusal is that the proposed parking layout prejudiced highway safety. At the time of the application, the Parish of St Helier suggested alterations to overcome this issue, which the agent has now complied with on the newly submitted drawings. It is recommended that this reason for refusal be removed. However, notwithstanding the original reasons for refusal, the building is not able to physically accommodate the number of spaces as indicated on the newly submitted drawings. The width of the internal space available for parking is 6.6 metres wide. The plans indicate two spaces of only 1.8 metres wide, 0.6 metres less each than required under Planning Policy Note No 3 ‘Parking Guidelines’. The drawings also indicate four spaces at the rear of the building measuring 2 metres wide by 4 metres long. Again, these spaces are significantly under the required minimum standards. Taking into account the standard dimensions as required by TTS and PPN No 3, the building can only accommodate 5 parking spaces. As such, the inadequacy of the layout to accommodate the proposed use is recommended to be included as a new reason for refusal. In conclusion, the agent has offered several reasons why a temporary private car park should be approved, however none of the reasons offered justify overriding the Island Plan’s specific presumption against private car parks, in Policy TT28. No exceptional circumstances or justification have been offered to validate sanctioning a use which the Island Plan presumes against. |
Reasons | 1. The proposed change of use involves the creation of a private car park primarily for commuters to the town centre, contrary to Policy TT28 of the Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed change of use would remove the current retail use, which makes a positive contribution to the vitality and viability of the town of St Helier, contrary to Policy BE2(vi) of the Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed parking layout does not achieve the minimum parking dimensions as defined by Planning Policy Note No 3 ‘Parking Guidelines’ and does not provide adequate space within the site for manoeuvring or parking, contrary to Policy G2(vii) of the Island Plan 2002. |
gov.je