Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade: Planning Application P/2010/1713

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 14 October 2011 regarding:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0096			Application Number: P/2010/1713 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade.		Date of Decision Summary:		7 October 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Planning Principal - Andy Townsend		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		N/A
Written Report Title :	Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade		Date of Written Report:		5 August 2011
Written Report Author:	Planning Principal - Andy Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade. Demolish dwelling. Construct 1 No. dwelling.
Decision(s): This application was considered by the Panel on 24 February following a site visit. The Panel decided to approve the application subject to certain details. It then came to light that the Panel was not fully constituted when considering the application at that time and therefore the application was taken back to the Panel on 26 May. It was then argued to the Panel that it could not be seen as objective in assessing the application again, and the Panel decided to defer the application for consideration by the Minister. The Minister heard the application and statements for and against at a meeting in public on 12 September 2011, and deferred for a Site Visit. Having read the papers, heard the representations made, and seen the site, the Minister resolved to grant planning permission.
Reason(s) for Decision: Reason For Approval Planning Permission has been granted following careful consideration of the scheme, its history, the plans and documents submitted, the relevant policies of the Island Plan and the consultation responses and representations received. It is recognised that the site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, wherein Policy C5 set a general presumption against development. This did not however preclude development, and in all cases the merits of a scheme and all material planning considerations must be taken into account. In the Green Zone the key issue was the impact upon the landscape. Replacement buildings, as proposed here, have historically been allowed where it has been considered that the proposed scheme would have a positive or no detrimental impact upon the landscape. The requirements of 2002 Island Plan Policies G2 (General Development Considerations), G3 (Quality of Design) and G15 (Replacement Buildings) have also been considered. Since the application was first submitted and considered acceptable by the Planning Applications Panel, the 2011 Island Plan has been adopted and the site now lies within the Coastal National Park. Policy NE6 sets the strongest presumption against development and gives the park the highest level of protection. The Policy does however allow for replacement residential buildings as an exception provided set criteria are met, including achieving environmental gains, restoration of landscape character, a reduction in visual impact and an improvement in design. The requirements of policies GD1, GD2, and GD7 have also been taken into account. Particular attention has been paid to the specific context of this site. This site is part of a distinct built up ribbon of dwellings fronting the road. It is not an isolated coastal site nor does the application propose new development of a vacant or undeveloped site in open countryside; the site already accommodates a residential dwelling within a group of residential dwellings, and the proposal is to replace it with another, single dwelling, facing the road. This proposal does not extend the existing ribbon of development nor does it involve development outside the line of existing buildings or the residential curtilage of the site, and it is considered that the high quality design of this proposal will improve the architectural quality of the group. Within the ribbon of development there is considerable variety with regard to the scale and style of the existing buildings, including single-storey and two-storey properties, and it is not therefore considered that a two storey development of this site is out of keeping within this context. Moreover, the proposed building has been improved, and its mass better broken up than the previous refused scheme. The majority of buildings in the ribbon sit above road level and due to the slope of the land many have domestic garages, driveways, or retaining walls between them and the road, some of which would not satisfy the Minister's current design standards. Whilst the building proposed has a larger floor area than that existing, this is mainly achieved not by building forwards in front of the building line, nor upwards so that it is taller than other buildings. Indeed the top of the building is lower than the ridge of the existing building. The increase in floor area is primarily achieved by lowering the level from that of the existing house and creating a second floor of accommodation in place of the mass of the existing pitched roof. This scheme has addressed the overlooking impact on adjoining properties and whilst it will clearly be visible from the west facing window in the side elevation of the house to the east, it is not considered that the impact on that property is so great that it justifies the refusal of Planning Permission. The scheme will provide improved parking, turning and visibility arrangements, reducing the pressure for on-street or verge car parking, and improving highway safety. A Condition is also imposed requiring the rear of the site to be landscaped to achieve a more natural and sympathetic appearance than is evident where other gardens have been extended. The front area of the site will be re-landscaped with materials which will reduce the visual impact of the development, when compared to the existing situation. Overall therefore it is considered that the proposed scheme will achieve architectural, environmental and highways improvements, and that it will enhance the existing built up ribbon of development, the site and its setting, rather than detract from them, and achieve a more environmentally efficient building. It is accepted that the application proposes a degree of excavation which is a cause of concern for some neighbours. The application has reduced the extent of excavation from the previous refused application, thereby reducing the potential impact on adjoining properties. In addition a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been required by a Condition on the Permit. All development however has some potential short term impact upon adjoining properties during the process of construction. It is not the purpose of the Planning Law to prevent development where there is the chance of some impact on adjoining properties during construction. To do so, would prohibit nearly all developments. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the works do not cause damage to any other property, whether Planning Permission is granted or not. Conditions: 1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans and documents permitted under this permit. No variations shall be made without the prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment or an authorised officer of the Development Control section of Planning and Building Services. 2. The architect appointed in the development of the scheme hereby approved, or any other architect as may be approved in writing by the Minister, shall be retained throughout all the construction phases of the development. Prior to the occupation of the development, the architect must give written confirmation to the Minister that he or she is satisfied that the development, including the landscaping, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and that the quality of the materials and workmanship are of the highest possible order. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of all of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. This shall include the windows, doors and garage gate. High quality photographic evidence (including product literature) may be sufficient for some items. 4. Prior to the commencement of any development on the site (including demolition or site clearance), a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. Such a plan will set out how the development shall be constructed with particular attention paid to the control of any disturbance which may be caused to adjoining properties through noise, dust and vibration; the plan shall also establish how communication with neighbours will be maintained. The approved plan shall be adhered to at all times unless specific written authority is given for a deviation from the plan. 5. Construction operations on site shall not be undertaken outside of the following hours; 08:00 - 17:30 Monday to Friday.There shall be no construction work undertaken on weekends or public holidays. 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a full method statement in respect of the excavation and engineering work to be undertaken, shall be submitted, and approved in writing by, the Minister or other authorised officer. Such a statement shall indicate what measures are to be taken to ensure that no damage (through vibration or impact) will occur to the structures of any nearby neighbouring residences. Such a method statement, as may be approved, shall thereafter be adhered to as part of the ongoing development works. 7. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the site shall be landscaped in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Whilst the front (north) side of the site can be landscaped in a domestic fashion, the rear (south) shall be re-landscaped with suitable indigenous species to give a natural, rather than a domestic, appearance, so as to match the wider natural character of the area. This area shall not therefore be considered as part of the residential curtilage of the dwelling, and the distinction between the usable residential curtilage and the area to be landscaped in a more natural fashion shall be clearly shown on the landscaping plan. 8. All planting and other operations comprised in the landscaping scheme approved under this permission in accordance with Condition no. 7 above, shall be carried out and completed prior to the occupation of the development. 9. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, visibility sight lines must be provided in accordance with the approved drawings. Everything within the visibility sight lines (including any gates, walls, railings and plant growth) is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011, or any amendment thereto or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence (or other means of enclosure), tank, the creation of any new openings in the external fabric of the building (or the replacement of any windows with doors or vice versa), any excavation, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. 11. Notwithstanding the details submitted, only the area outlined in red on the location plan is authorised residential curtilage. The area outlined in blue is not. Reasons 1. To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. 2. To ensure that the highest quality of materials and workmanship are used in order that the original design concept is not diluted to the detriment of the development. , 3. The execution of this development is considered to be critical to its success, and the Minister wishes to be assured as to the quality of these details. 4. The development is in close proximity to adjoining dwellings in an area with little background noise and vibration, and, in these circumstances, it is required that special attention be paid to how the development can be implemented in a way which minimises the impact on adjoining properties. The applicant is recommended to consult with the Environmental Health Officer in producing the Construction Environmental Management Plan prior to its submission to the Minister. 5. In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties. 6. To ensure that the works do not damage any nearby neighbouring residences. 7. Whilst the proposed building will form part of a distinct built up ribbon of development, the context of this site is more natural. As part of the enhancement of the site achieved by the development, the Minister requires that the site be suitably landscaped, and in particular that the area to the rear of the building be improved to give a natural setting to the site in the interests of the character of the area. 8. To ensure that the benefits of the approved landscaping scheme are not delayed and consequently make an early contribution to the amenity of the site in the interests of sustaining and enhancing landscape quality. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. Owing to the prominence and location of the site, together with the design concept of the new dwelling, the Minister wishes to retain strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed. 11. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that this area does not become manicured or have the apperance of a domestic area, which would be detrimental to the character of the area.
Resource Implications: The decision may be challenged by a third party. However if the application were refused a First Party Appeal is very likely. The resource implications are the same in either event.
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade: Planning Application P/2010/1713 - Decision

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

P/2010/1713

Site Address	Greenhaze, La Rue du Grouet, St. Brelade.

Applicant	NDC Investments Ltd

Description	Demolish dwelling. Construct 1 No. dwelling.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	23/11/2010

Zones	Green Zone

Policies	GD1 – General Development Considerations GD2 – Demolition and Replacement of Buildings GD7 – Design Quality NE6 – Coastal National Park WM1 – Waste Minimisation and New Development

Reason for Referral	NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED

Summary/

Conclusion

This application was considered by the Panel on 24 February following a site visit. The Panel decided to approve the application subject to certain details. It then came to light that the Panel was not fully constituted when considering the application at that time and therefore the application was taken back to the Panel on 26 May. It was then argued to the Panel that it could not be seen as objective in assessing the application again, and the Panel decided to defer the application for consideration by the Minister.

At the request of Senator Shenton, the Assistant Minister (Environment) was also asked to comment on the application and the proposed conditions for this application and that at Les Brisants – two doors away. Having done so the Assistant Minister’s view is that the scale and design of the development is acceptable within this ribbon of houses, but that it is important that the setting of the building and the bay is appropriately landscaped. In particular as can be seen on some houses in the area, domestication of the steep slope to the rear (south) would be detrimental to the area. In addition to a landscaping condition therefore, it was recommended that the extent of the residential curtilage be asserted as not including the majority of the area to the rear (south) of the building.

The Department’s original report is attached. When considered by the Panel, the site lay within the Green Zone as shown on the 2002 Island Plan. The site is within the Coastal National Park in the new 2011 Plan which has been adopted since the application was first received, and since the Panel resolved to approve the application. This is an unusual case. The application was submitted under the 2002 Island Plan, and a decision was made under that Plan. It now falls to be considered by the Minister, and under the policies of the 2011 Plan which has now been adopted. If a Royal Court appeal is made, either by a first or third party, the Court will consider the reasonableness of the decision, and it is important therefore that the Minister is aware of the history of this application.

In the 2002 Plan the site lay within the Green Zone wherein there is a presumption against development. Although the policy did not specifically allow for replacement dwellings, the full merits of the case has to be assessed, and Planning Permission had often been granted for the replacement of dwellings in the Green Zone on a one-for-one basis, provided it was considered that the proposals had no detrimental impact on the landscape and the zone as stipulated in Policy C5. Although the existing property on the site is only single storey, there are variety of sizes and styles of buildings in this distinct ribbon of development, and it was not considered that a clean lightweight contemporary design over two storeys would be detrimental to the character of the area. Indeed architecturally it is considered that it would enhance the site and the area.

A previous application had been refused on the basis of the scale of development, the extent of excavation and the impact on adjoining properties. This new scheme has been reduced in scale, and in particular the areas of excavation have been separated reducing the volume of excavation significantly. Overlooking of adjacent properties has also been addressed, and although there is a west facing window in the adjacent property to the east, it is not considered that the impact on that window is such that it would justify the refusal of Planning Permission.

The creation of an underground parking area would significantly improve parking arrangements and visibility.

Although a large amount of excavation is still proposed, it is considered that the character of the area will be both retained, and improved by the construction of an attractive contemporary building. The potential impact on adjacent properties through the process of excavation and construction is a matter to be resolved by the applicant, and not one on which a decision to grant or refuse Planning Permission should pivot.

The Department was also mindful of the Royal Court decision at Eventide which is within the same ribbon of houses. In that case the property was to be extended. Assessing the third party appeal, the Court considered that the Department had not adequately demonstrated why the scheme was acceptable given it lay within the Green Zone, that the development would be detrimental to the area, and that it would impact on neighbours. Each case must be judged on its merits, and the Department considers that for the reasons stated in this report, the replacement of the existing house with a new one on this site, is not detrimental to the area. This is a matter of judgement however and reasonable arguments can be made for and against the development.

It had previously been argued to the Panel that allowing a construction site in the (then proposed) Coastal National Park would have an unacceptable impact. Since the adoption of the 2011 Plan, the site is now part of the Coastal National Park. However, whilst Policy NE6 sets the strongest presumption against development and gives the Park the highest level of protection from development, which will be given priority over all other planning considerations, the Island Plan recognises that the Park is a living landscape with many buildings and land uses within it. It is therefore recognised that there may be opportunities to improve the Coastal National Park through redevelopment particularly if this achieves improvements to the landscape, reductions in impact and improvements in design. Such development inevitably creates a construction site in the short term but the decision on any application must be made on the basis of its long term impact.

Policy NE6 also states that the redevelopment of existing residential buildings may be allowed as an exception but only where it demonstrated that it would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains, and make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape character of the area by a reduction in their visual impact and an improvement in the design of the buildings that is more sensitive to the character of the area and local relevance.

This scheme would replace a small but unattractive roadside garage, secure landscaping of the site and allow a building which in the Department’s assessment is an attractive design. Improved parking and visibility would be achieved. A 2 storey building in this position is not in the Department’s view detrimental to the mixed character of this ribbon of houses but it could be argued that it does not achieve a reduction in visual impact. In this most unusual case however, it is considered that it would be unreasonable not to acknowledge the history of this application and the 2002 Island Plan under which it was submitted and originally assessed. This Plan, whilst requiring careful assessment of the impact of the development on the landscape, did not specifically require a reduction in visual impact. Whilst the development may not achieve a reduction in visual impact it is felt to achieve an improvement in design and appearance.

Balancing all of the factors therefore, the Department recommendation is for approval.

It is recognised that many of the key issues rely upon a judgement and that whilst the applicant feels the scheme is acceptable, a number of objections have been received and these views are respected. The final assessment is a matter for the Minister.

The Minister should be aware that there is also an application to be decided at the property Les Brisants 2 doors away.

Officer

Recommendation

APPROVE

Site Description	The existing property accommodates three bedrooms on one level. Due to the steep slope of the site up towards the south, on its northern roadside face the building sits on a masonry plinth, whereas at the rear it is dug into the ground. The front of the site slopes down further towards the road and is landscaped. The property has a single garage at road level dug into the slope with poor visibility in both directions. It has no other car parking on site and fails to meet minimum standards. The submitted location plan also shows outlined in blue an area of cotil to the south of the property in the same ownership. This is not considered to be part of the authorised residential curtilage however.

Relevant Planning History	A previous application reference P/2009/2144, also proposed the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a new dwelling. The proposal involved a significant amount of excavation stretching a total of 27 metres back into the site from the road. This accommodated a parking and turning area at approximate road level, above which was a mezzanine leading to two floors of habitable accommodation above. The Department considered the proposed building architecturally satisfactory and recommended the principle of a replacement dwelling, but considered the extent of excavation excessive in this location and recommended that a smaller parking and turning area be pursued which would allow for the creation of that area separate from the construction of the house. This would reduce the volume of excavation significantly. The application was deferred following consideration by the Planning Applications Panel and a site visit, but the amendments submitted did not include the separation of the two areas of excavation, and the application was then refused on two grounds:- The site lies within the Green Zone wherein there is a presumption against development. It is accepted that replacement dwellings have been allowed in this zone, however, rather than retain and enhance the site the proposals require the excavation of a significant extent of the site and remodelling of the landscape. Moreover, the proposals involve a material increase in the scale and massing of buildings on the site. It is considered that the scale of the development proposed in this case is excessive and fails to adequately respect the character and designation of the site and the area. It is not therefore considered that it satisfies the requirements of Policies G2 or G3, nor does it justify an exception to the normal presumption against development set out in Policy C5, nor achieve an enhancement of the site as required by Policy G15. Notwithstanding the improvement made in the amended drawings, it is considered that as submitted, and without adequate screening, the ground floor balcony at the front, and the first floor balcony to the rear, will lead to unacceptable levels of overlooking of adjoining properties. The scheme therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy G2.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	1 dwelling.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	1 dwelling.

Consultations	TTS (Highways) Section - in their comments of 14 January note that their previous comments apply. The existing parking arrangements are inadequate with poor visibility from the garage. The new scheme provides for additional parking and turning and achieves the maximum visibility possible within the applicant’s ownership. Any ramp into the parking area must not however exceed 1:20. The Natural Environment Section of the Environment Department – in their comments of 23 December note that it is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that site workers are aware of protected species and their habitats, and that work must stop and the Environment Department notified to resolve mitigation if any such species are found. These may include green lizards, grass snakes and slow worms. TTS (Drainage) Section - in their comments of 16 December note that the foul sewer is available in the main road. An existing external downpipe however, also drains to the sewer which is unacceptable. All surface water should drain to a soakaway. All consultation responses are attached as background papers

Summary of Representations	8 letters of objection have been received raising issues including:- The site lies within the Green Zone (now Coastal National Park) wherein there is a presumption against development. The proposed building is too large, overwhelming the site and is an overdevelopment of the site, and out of keeping with its Green Zone (Coastal National Park) designation and setting. The extent of excavation required is inappropriate in the Green Zone (Coastal National Park). The building achieves inadequate space around the building. The scale of excavation raises concerns with the impact on the safety and integrity of adjacent properties, and a previous structural report by Hartigans (submitted again) raises concern that the adjacent properties may be damaged. The increase in scale is excessive including a 130% increase in habitable space and an increase in the garage area of 409%, requiring 12000 cubic metres or 3000 tonnes of material to be excavated and removed. The adjoining houses are both single storey, and the proposed development on two floors fails to respect the character and linear feel of the immediate area. The garden area proposed at the rear will lead to overlooking of the adjacent property. As the parking area is now set back 5 metres the building and excavation extend further than before. Loss of light to the adjacent property to the east. The architect responded in a letter dated 26 January, making several points including:- Excavation required has been significantly reduced from the previous scheme and the gaps to the boundaries increased. Visibility, turning and the levels meet TTS’s requirements, and the 5 metre set back allows for the grass bank to be reinstated. The client will employ a specialist structural engineer to undertake a survey and monitor and supervise the work. Once the property is unoccupied a full Geotechnical Survey can be undertaken and a Method Statement for excavation and shoring resolved. There is no intention of any works in the rear garden area, and therefore no potential increase in overlooking. Any new fencing to overcome such concerns would urbanise the area. With regard to the loss of light to the property to the east, the objectors photograph does not reflect the roofline of the proposal accurately. Although it is 1.05 metres higher than the existing flat roof, it is 1.1 metres further back into the site. The letters of representation together with a document handed to the Panel and the architect’s response are attached as background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations As noted in the Summary above, this application was submitted and first assessed under the 2002 Island Plan. The site lay within the Green Zone wherein there was a clear presumption against development. The policy did however accept that it would be unreasonable to prevent all development and listed certain types of development which may, in principle, be acceptable, subject to their impact on the landscape. This included alterations and extensions to existing residential properties. Replacement dwellings were not listed specifically as an acceptable form of development in the Green Zone. Therefore, as is stated within the policy, the key issue is the impact on the landscape. Planning Permission has often been allowed for the replacement of existing dwellings in the Green Zone on a one-for-one basis, where it was considered that development would not have a detrimental impact upon the area and the zone. The policy did not set a moratorium against replacement dwellings. As in all planning decisions all material considerations must be taken into account and a reasonable decision reached. The key issue with regard to the Green Zone was whether the proposed development is considered compatible with, or harmful to the landscape character of the area. With this is in mind, it was noted that this site is already occupied by a single dwelling albeit smaller than that proposed, and that the plot forms one of a series of residential plots in a ribbon of development overlooking Petit Port Bay. Policy G15 related specifically to Replacement Buildings. It set a presumption in favour of retaining buildings where possible. The Panel had however often allowed for replacement buildings where it was considered that the replacement enhanced the site. In support of the applicant’s case, a structural report has been submitted pointing out the shortfalls of the existing building. Moreover, in refusing the previous application, the Panel accepted the principle of some of some form of replacement. The development was not however considered to achieve the enhancement required by Policy G15. The standard requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations), and G3 (Quality of Design) were also addressed. This includes providing adequate car parking, amenity space and avoiding any detrimental impact upon adjacent properties. In the now adopted 2011 Island Plan, the site is within the Coastal National Park. The relevant policy (NE6) is discussed in the Summary above. Policies G2, G3 and G15 have been replaced by GD1, GD7 and GD2 respectively. These continue to require a high quality of design and sympathy for their context, the achievement of adequate parking, visibility and amenity space, and respect for neighbours’ amenities. Policy GD1 specifically requires that development must not have “an unreasonable impact on the character of the coast and countryside” including the Coastal National Park. GD1 and GD2 reaffirm the objective of allowing replacement buildings only where there are not appropriate to repair or refurbish and where the replacement enhances the site and surroundings. Policy WM1 relates to Waste Minimisation and New Development and encourages the minimisation of waste generation and an increase in recycling and re-use. The applicant has argued why the existing building should be replaced with one which is more efficient in the long term and submitted a Waste Management Plan to explain how material will be re-used where possible. Land Use Implications None. There is no change in land use. Size, Scale and Siting The existing building is single storey. The proposed building comprises two floors of accommodation in a contemporary style, the composition of which has been improved since the refused scheme. The building has also been lowered from the previous, refused, scheme, such that the highest part of the roof is now at 28.970 compared to the existing ridge at 30.14. The roof steps up towards the south (rear) by 0.72 metres. At the most obvious point, the front, the eaves is 0.6 metres above the existing. The rear of the existing building is a single storey flat roof extension. The proposed building is at this point only just over 1 metre above that current level. The building has also been marginally reduced in width by 0.3m. The proposed floor area of the building has also been reduced from the original scheme by 19%. This is an increase of 132% over the existing house, 175% including the new garage – Architect’s figures. This combination of alterations attempts to reduce the scale and massing of the proposed building. The design of the building remains contemporary and uses large areas of glass to lighten the appearance of the building, whilst also making the most of the views of the sea. This lightweight style with a very clear horizontal emphasis is considered attractive. The accommodation of two floors in place of an existing single floor (plus its pitched roof), is likely to appear larger than the existing building. Although the existing building is single storey, as are others in the area, there are also 1½ and 2 storey buildings in the area, and it is not considered that a two storey development on this site is necessarily inappropriate, particularly given that its ultimate roof height is lower than the existing building. Moreover, although the site is within the Coastal National Park, the site forms part of a distinct ribbon of development on the south side of the bay. There are a variety of buildings with no distinct architectural style or set scale. The Department’s conclusion is that a contemporary building of high quality will be in accordance with the Minister’s design principles, and will not be harmful to the character of this ribbon. The dwelling is increased in size by approximately 132%, but neither the 2002 Green Zone policy nor the 2011 Coastal National Park policy set a specific figure on acceptable (or unacceptable) floor areas. There is a presumption against development and whilst exceptions may be allowed, the key issue is the impact on the landscape. Much of the new building is dug into the site and whilst the size of the garage is significantly increased, the new garage will, following landscaping, be hidden from view, and will provide for improved car parking, turning and visibility, which would be of tangible benefit to public safety. Design and Use of Materials As noted above, the design of the building is considered attractive. The building is primarily constructed in rendered blockwork, the front part coloured mushroom, the rear in white, with large areas of glass in powder coated aluminium frames. In dealing with the previous application, the Environment Department felt that the extent of glass was inappropriate, but the Department recommended that non-reflective glass could avoid any potential glare and help the building sit better within the landscape. All windows, doors and fascias are shown to be in powder coated aluminium with timber soffits and a grey alwitra roof. Impact on Neighbours The previous application was refused in part due to the potential of overlooking. This has been addressed in the new scheme. The ground floor balcony is lower than that of the existing property. The first floor balcony, which would be higher than the existing balconies, could potentially lead to overlooking, but screens are incorporated in the design to prevent this. It is noted that although the land rises steeply towards the south, no alterations are proposed to this area which would increase overlooking. The building includes two windows at first floor level on the east elevation, but these would be at high level. There are no first floor windows on the west facing elevation towards the adjacent property. With regard to loss of light, it is noted that there is a west facing side window in the adjacent property to the east. It is noted that the new building is deeper, back to front, than the existing building, and by the addition of a first floor in place of the existing hipped roof, the building will appear larger from the neighbouring property. However, the existing window does not have a completely open outlook and it is unreasonable to completely deny development on an adjacent property, due to an existing window on another property. A reasonable balance has to be achieved, and it is considered that with the building now lowered, that any loss of light is not so significant so as to justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Concern has been raised, as it was in the previous application, with regard to the process of construction, and particularly the extent of excavation and potential damage to adjacent properties. This however is not an issue on which a planning decision should pivot, and the purpose of the Planning Law is not to deny development where there is any potential disturbance to adjacent properties during the short term process of construction. This impact was not included in the reasons for refusing the previous application. The Department did however previously recommend that the extent of excavation was unacceptable, as it illustrated that the proposals sought to alter the site to a large degree to fit the development. In particular, the Department recommended that the excavation for the parking area and for the house be reduced and separated. This in turn would reduce the extent of excavation works, and any potential disturbance or likelihood of damage to adjacent properties. This recommendation has now been adopted in the amended scheme. The areas of excavation have not been significantly brought in from the boundaries of adjacent properties, but the depth of excavation has been reduced. The applicant has also stated that a full survey will be undertaken before any works commence, to ensure the impact on adjacent properties is taken account of in the construction process. Access, Car Parking and Highway Considerations As noted above, the existing property has inadequate car parking and a single garage with poor visibility. The proposal includes the creation of four parking spaces with turning. In addition, visibility is significantly improved. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping Issues No works are proposed at the rear of the property, other than the creation of the patios immediately adjacent to the property. At the front of the house, an area will be excavated to create the garaging area. This will then be landscaped to achieve a similar profile and appearance to that existing. Further details of this are required by Condition. Other Material Considerations A detailed Waste Management Plan and Design Statement have been submitted with the application.

Officer Recommendation	APPROVE

Conditions/ Reasons	1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans and documents permitted under this permit. No variations shall be made without the prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment or an authorised officer of the Development Control section of Planning and Building Services. 2. The architect appointed in the development of the scheme hereby approved, or any other architect as may be approved in writing by the Minister, shall be retained throughout all the construction phases of the development. Prior to the occupation of the development, the architect must give written confirmation to the Minister that he or she is satisfied that the development, including the landscaping, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and that the quality of the materials and workmanship are of the highest possible order. 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of all of the external materials to be used shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. This shall include the windows, doors and garage gate. High quality photographic evidence (including product literature) may be sufficient for some items. 4. Prior to the commencement of any development on the site (including demolition or site clearance), a comprehensive Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. Such a plan will set out how the development shall be constructed with particular attention paid to the control of any disturbance which may be caused to adjoining properties through noise, dust and vibration; the plan shall also establish how communication with neighbours will be maintained. The approved plan shall be adhered to at all times unless specific written authority is given for a deviation from the plan. 5. Construction operations on site shall not be undertaken outside of the following hours; 08:00 - 17:30 Monday to Friday.There shall be no construction work undertaken on weekends or public holidays. 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a full method statement in respect of the excavation and engineering work to be undertaken, shall be submitted, and approved in writing by, the Minister or other authorised officer. Such a statement shall indicate what measures are to be taken to ensure that no damage (through vibration or impact) will occur to the structures of any nearby neighbouring residences. Such a method statement, as may be approved, shall thereafter be adhered to as part of the ongoing development works. 7. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the site shall be landscaped in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Whilst the front (north) side of the site can be landscaped in a domestic fashion, the rear (south) shall be re-landscaped with suitable indigenous species to give a natural, rather than a domestic, appearance, so as to match the wider natural character of the area. This area shall not therefore be considered as part of the residential curtilage of the dwelling, and the distinction between the usable residential curtilage and the area to be landscaped in a more natural fashion shall be clearly shown on the landscaping plan. 8. All planting and other operations comprised in the landscaping scheme approved under this permission in accordance with Condition no. 7 above, shall be carried out and completed prior to the occupation of the development. 9. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, visibility sight lines must be provided in accordance with the approved drawings. Everything within the visibility sight lines (including any gates, walls, railings and plant growth) is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011, or any amendment thereto or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence (or other means of enclosure), tank, the creation of any new openings in the external fabric of the building (or the replacement of any windows with doors or vice versa), any excavation, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. 11. Notwithstanding the details submitted, only the area outlined in red on the location plan is authorised residential curtilage. The area outlined in blue is not. Reasons 1. To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. 2. To ensure that the highest quality of materials and workmanship are used in order that the original design concept is not diluted to the detriment of the development. , 3. The execution of this development is considered to be critical to its success, and the Minister wishes to be assured as to the quality of these details. 4. The development is in close proximity to adjoining dwellings in an area with little background noise and vibration, and, in these circumstances, it is required that special attention be paid to how the development can be implemented in a way which minimises the impact on adjoining properties. The applicant is recommended to consult with the Environmental Health Officer in producing the Construction Environmental Management Plan prior to its submission to the Minister. 5. In the interests of the amenity of neighbouring properties. 6. To ensure that the works do not damage any nearby neighbouring residences. 7. Whilst the proposed building will form part of a distinct built up ribbon of development, the context of this site is more natural. As part of the enhancement of the site achieved by the development, the Minister requires that the site be suitably landscaped, and in particular that the area to the rear of the building be improved to give a natural setting to the site in the interests of the character of the area. 8. To ensure that the benefits of the approved landscaping scheme are not delayed and consequently make an early contribution to the amenity of the site in the interests of sustaining and enhancing landscape quality. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. Owing to the prominence and location of the site, together with the design concept of the new dwelling, the Minister wishes to retain strict control over the form of any additional development which may be proposed. 11. For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that this area does not become manicured or have the apperance of a domestic area, which would be detrimental to the character of the area. Recommended Reason For Approval in the event that the application is approved Planning Permission has been granted following careful consideration of the scheme, its history, the plans and documents submitted, the relevant policies of the Island Plan and the consultation responses and representations received. It is recognised that the site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, wherein Policy C5 set a general presumption against development. This did not however preclude development, and in all cases the merits of a scheme and all material planning considerations must be taken into account. In the Green Zone the key issue was the impact upon the landscape. Replacement buildings, as proposed here, have historically been allowed where it has been considered that the proposed scheme would have a positive or no detrimental impact upon the landscape. The requirements of 2002 Island Plan Policies G2 (General Development Considerations), G3 (Quality of Design) and G15 (Replacement Buildings) have also been considered. Since the application was first submitted and considered acceptable by the Planning Applications Panel, the 2011 Island Plan has been adopted and the site now lies within the Coastal National Park. Policy NE6 sets the strongest presumption against development and gives the park the highest level of protection. The Policy does however allow for replacement residential buildings as an exception provided set criteria are met, including achieving environmental gains, restoration of landscape character, a reduction in visual impact and an improvement in design. The requirements of policies GD1, GD2, and GD7 have also been taken into account. Particular attention has been paid to the specific context of this site. This site is part of a distinct built up ribbon of dwellings fronting the road. It is not an isolated coastal site nor does the application propose new development of a vacant or undeveloped site in open countryside; the site already accommodates a residential dwelling within a group of residential dwellings, and the proposal is to replace it with another, single dwelling, facing the road. This proposal does not extend the existing ribbon of development nor does it involve development outside the line of existing buildings or the residential curtilage of the site, and it is considered that the high quality design of this proposal will improve the architectural quality of the group. Within the ribbon of development there is considerable variety with regard to the scale and style of the existing buildings, including single-storey and two-storey properties, and it is not therefore considered that a two storey development of this site is out of keeping within this context. Moreover, the proposed building has been improved, and its mass better broken up than the previous refused scheme. The majority of buildings in the ribbon sit above road level and due to the slope of the land many have domestic garages, driveways, or retaining walls between them and the road, some of which would not satisfy the Minister's current design standards. Whilst the building proposed has a larger floor area than that existing, this is mainly achieved not by building forwards in front of the building line, nor upwards so that it is taller than other buildings. Indeed the top of the building is lower than the ridge of the existing building. The increase in floor area is primarily achieved by lowering the level from that of the existing house and creating a second floor of accommodation in place of the mass of the existing pitched roof. This scheme has addressed the overlooking impact on adjoining properties and whilst it will clearly be visible from the west facing window in the side elevation of the house to the east, it is not considered that the impact on that property is so great that it justifies the refusal of Planning Permission. The scheme will provide improved parking, turning and visibility arrangements, reducing the pressure for on-street or verge car parking, and improving highway safety. A Condition is also imposed requiring the rear of the site to be landscaped to achieve a more natural and sympathetic appearance than is evident where other gardens have been extended. The front area of the site will be re-landscaped with materials which will reduce the visual impact of the development, when compared to the existing situation. Overall therefore it is considered that the proposed scheme will achieve architectural, environmental and highways improvements, and that it will enhance the existing built up ribbon of development, the site and its setting, rather than detract from them. It is accepted that the application proposes a degree of excavation which is a cause of concern for some neighbours. The application has reduced the extent of excavation from the previous refused application, thereby reducing the potential impact on adjoining properties. In addition a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been required by a Condition on the Permit. All development however has some potential short term impact upon adjoining properties during the process of construction. It is not the purpose of the Planning Law to prevent development where there is the chance of some impact on adjoining properties during construction. To do so, would prohibit nearly all developments. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the works do not cause damage to any other property, whether Planning Permission is granted or not.

Background Papers	Original Report 11 February 2011 including: 1:2500 Location Plan. Consultation responses from Transport and Technical Services (Highways and Drainage Sections), and the Environment Department. All letters of objection. Design Statement and Structural Report. Architect’s response – 26 January. Planning Applications Panel Minutes 24 February 2011 Further objections and letters Department Report 16 May 2011 Planning applications panel Minutes 26 May 2011

Endorsed by:

Date: