Policy Considerations The previous (refused) application strayed into the Green Zone to the north. The buildings proposed as part of this current application, do not. The buildings lie within the Built Up Area wherein there is no presumption in principle against their redevelopment. In addition there is no policy which seeks to retain and protect the existing tourist accommodation. The development will need to satisfy the normal requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations), G3 (Quality of Design) and H8 (Housing Development in the Built Up Area), and also, as the proposal involves the redevelopment of existing buildings, needs to satisfy the requirements of Policy G15 and G16 (Replacement Buildings and Demolition of Buildings), which seek to retain and re-use existing buildings where possible, and where a replacement is envisaged, require the development to enhance the site and area. Trees should retained (policy G14), waste management considered (WM2), and the Tourism Destination Area of St Aubin not harmed (TR2). Land Use Implications As noted above there is no policy objection to the loss of the existing hotel and restaurant facilities. The vast majority of surrounding properties are in residential use, and therefore in principle a residential use of this site is compatible with the area, and is likely to significantly reduce traffic generation to the site, when compared to the existing hotel and the restaurant which was open to non-residents. Size, Scale and Siting This is a large development in a very prominent position above St. Aubin’s Village, particularly evident in views from the harbour. The previous application was considered an overdevelopment of the site and in a manner which was architecturally inappropriate to the character of the area. If the site is to be redeveloped there are a number of architectural styles which could be adopted. The Department has previously discussed a number of alternatives with the applicant, but none of the schemes submitted were considered successful. Ultimately, therefore the Department recommended a traditional façade to the proposed development which reflects the nature of buildings in the older parts of St. Aubin, and which are in accordance with the Minister’s Design Principles. For such an approach to be successful, the fine details will be crucial, and the applicant has previously been advised that detailed drawings at a scale of 1:20 will be required for windows, doors, soil pipes, any extracts, reveals, and any shutters, plus the fine details of means of enclosure, including any enclosing or retaining walls. In addition, it is considered that the dormer windows shown on Terrace no. 1 are overlarge and should be reduced. However, given the lengthy negotiations thus far, the Department is seeking a decision from the Panel with regard to the principle of the style and scale of development proposed, before requiring the applicant to produce these finer detailed drawings. Both style and impact are subjective matters, and whilst some of the representations welcome the proposed architectural style, others do not. On balance the Department feels that this style of façade is complementary to the feel of St. Aubin. Close inspection of the older parts of the village show that amongst the excellent buildings there are some poorer newer buildings and some older buildings which have been unsympathetically extended. This proposed development however concentrates on the best examples, and in the Department’s view achieves a development in a style which one would expect to see within St. Aubin, and therefore one which compliments the style and setting of the village. The elevation facing east is broken up into a number of individual elements intending to suggest separate houses as found in the older parts of the village. Although quite deep, the scale and mass of these is considered reasonable. The units at the southern corner of the site, reflect the style of the Somerville Hotel and the units to the west are amalgamated into a single classical building. The intention is to break up the scale of the development. One of the main criticisms of the previous scheme was that it imposed an identical style of development across the entire frontage of the site, out of character with the scale, grain and nature of any other development in the village. The separate elements are attached to each other to suggest the same density of development which is found in the older parts of the village. Internally, some of the flats spread from one façade to another. The scheme improves upon that previously refused by including some landscaping to the front which can also be used as shared amenity space. This, together with the garden area to the north-east, provides for amenity space for the proposed occupiers without the need for the large balconies which resulted in design and overlooking issues on the previous, refused, scheme. The details of any walls and means of enclosure will be vitally important, as will landscaping, and further details will be required if the Panel accepts the principle of the development. The size of the building at the rear has been marginally reduced to overcome criticisms from the Department that the building was oversized, and appeared cramped in relation to the buildings along the eastern frontage. The extent of building in the southern corner has also been reduced to allow the trees covered by a TPO to be retained – See “Landscaping Issues” below. Design and Use of Materials The design philosophy is discussed under the heading, Size, Scale and Siting above. A variety of materials are used reflecting the different elements of the scheme. This includes granite render, slates and pantiles. It is expected that all windows will be in timber, that any shutters are in timber and operational, and that all dormers are in lead. As noted above, means of enclosure will be particularly important, and it is expected that most walls should be in granite.
Impact on Neighbours Due to the change in style discussed above, the large number of substantial balconies in the previous scheme has been lost. This means that overlooking issues are significantly reduced, and given the existing overlooking from hotel rooms and the public restaurant, it is not considered that there will be any unreasonable level of overlooking. Likewise it is not considered that the proposed buildings will be overbearing on adjacent properties, and any noise and disturbance in the long term, is likely to be less than from the existing commercial uses. The development does however rely upon the demolition of the existing buildings and large volumes of excavation not least to create the underground car parking areas. In the short term there will be disruption from the construction process, but this is true of any development, and it has been accepted as not being grounds on which to decide or refuse, a Planning application. Some concerns have been raised with regard to the stability of the land as a result of the excavation and construction processes. This again, however, is a matter for the applicant to ensure that he covers including any liability for damage. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations This scheme creates a significant number of units less than the previous refused scheme. Moreover, the level of traffic generation is likely to be significantly less than the existing commercial buildings on site. No objection to the accesses has been raised by the Parish. A total of 35 car parking spaces are provided (30 in garaging and 5 at surface). The Minister’s Guidelines for car parking allow for the provision of just 2 parking spaces per unit, where a number of flats are created. In addition, visitor spaces will normally be required on the basis of one for every 3 units. This would give a total of 33 car parking spaces and 35 are provided. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping Issues It is has always been considered important to retain the landscaping at the front of the site, and the failure to do this was a criticism of the previous refused scheme. Greater provision is now made for landscaping at the front of the site. In addition, the garden to the north is to be retained and improved. The details of this will need to be agreed. In addition, there are two trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order at the southern end of the site. On the original drawings these trees were shown to be removed. Recently, however, in the light of concerns raised by the States Arboriculturalist, the applicant has submitted an amendment to the scheme, which reduces the size of the building at the southern corner. This increases the distance to the existing trees so that there is in fact a small improvement over the existing relationship between the current hotel buildings and the trees. It is therefore now proposed that the trees be retained, and the States Arboriculturalist has confirmed that he is content with the scheme as amended. Other Material Considerations The scheme is of a scale which generates a request for a Percentage For Art contribution. This has not been demanded thus far as the principle of the development has yet to be agreed by The Panel. As noted above, the scheme relies upon large volume of demolition and excavation, not least to achieve the underground car parking required to serve the number of units proposed. Comments are still awaited from the Environment Department with regard to the applicant’s Waste Management Plan, but it is evident that the large volume of material will need to be removed. It has previously been suggested to the applicant however, that provided a scheme for the site achieves a positive enhancement of the site, and contributes to the character of the area, that the extent of short term excavation will be mitigated by the long term benefits to the area. The final decision lies with the Panel whether it is considered that the scheme achieves these gains adequately to satisfy this requirement, and those of the relevant policies noted in this report. | 
gov.je