Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St. Brelade.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (10/06/2008) regarding: Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St. Brelade.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008-0125			Application Number: PP/2006/2642 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St Brelade		Date of Decision Summary:		4.6.08
Decision Summary Author:	A 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:		A Townsend
Written Report Title :	Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St Brelade		Date of Written Report:		18.9.07
Written Report Author:	A Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St. Brelade Demolish existing structures. Construct 12 No. apartments with parking below.
Decision(s): At a public meeting held on the 28th September 2007 the Minister deferred making a decision as he required an Environmental Impact Assessment and a full landscaping plan prepared by an internationally celebrated landscape architect. On the 29th November 2007 the Applicant withdrew the application.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister was not prepared to approve the scheme in its current form.
Resource Implications: Normal Development Control and Administration
Action required: Notify Architect, Applicant and all interested parties
Signature:		PT / PLeg Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision 28.9.07

Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St. Brelade.

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

PP/2006/2642

Site Address	Quennevais House, La Route Orange, St. Brelade.

Applicant	QH Limited

Description	Demolish existing structures. Construct 12 No. apartments with parking below.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	06/12/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone (Main part of Site) Green Zone (Land to the South)

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations G3 – Quality of Design C6 – Countryside Zone G15 – Replacement Buildings

Reason for Referral	Scale of Development and number of objections

Summary/

Conclusion

The existing and proposed buildings lie within the Countryside Zone wherein there is a general presumption against development so as to protect the character of the countryside. However, on the rarest of occasions, it is possible for exceptions to this presumption to be made in the best interests of the Island, under criteria (x) of policy C6. The test is necessarily exacting – there must be a proven need for the development, for it to be in the best interests of the Island and that it cannot be practically located elsewhere. In this case, the proposed flats would meet the demand of high value residents, who are being encouraged to the Island by the States. If it is the Minister’s view that this development is necessary and that it cannot be located elsewhere, then the policy allows for it.

Policy G2 requires any development to address issues such as overlooking and traffic, and Policy G3 (Quality of Design) encourages high quality design.

All of these objectives have to be considered together with all material Planning considerations, and a judgement has to be made.

Since the application was submitted some modest amendments have been submitted, and the application is now requested to be considered as one for Full Planning Permission. The design is potentially of a very high quality having been submitted by an internationally recognised architect, and it is considered reasonable to require that, if the scheme is approved, the architect be retained throughout construction to ensure a high quality development is achieved. The Department’s view however is that the building as proposed is too large and notwithstanding its quality, would have too great an impact on the character of the area. The Department would be prepared to support a more modest scheme.

Improvements to the access are proposed by Transport and Technical Services. These can be achieved but are not included in the application as submitted. Additional landscaping information is also required.

Officer

Recommendation

NEGOTIATE A REDUCED SCHEME

Site Description	Quennevais House is a large residential property with ancillary outbuildings, set in a very large plot. Although the site has a frontage to La Route Orange, it is set a considerable distance from the road and although visible, is not prominent. The rear of the building and its large gardens, are visible from the well used footpath which runs from Les Creux Country Park and Beauport car park down to St. Brelade’s Church.

Relevant Planning History	None directly relevant to this application.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Residential dwelling

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	12 flats.

Consultations	Parish of St. Brelade – in their response of 20 December raise no comments noting that the access is on to a road administered by Transport and Technical Services. Transport and Technical Services (Highways) Section - in their response of 15 January, require that the access be widened to 6 metres so that two vehicles can pass, and the driveway widened to 4.8 metres, although pinch-points at certain stages would be acceptable to retain trees. A separate pedestrian access is also recommended. Transport and Technical Services (Drainage) Section – in their comments of 28 December note that the site already has a private pumping station to the foul sewer. Any surface water would however have to be diverted to soakaways. The Environment Department - in their comments of 5 February note that the proposals will result in a significant amount of demolition waste for which they would expect a detailed Waste Management Plan, details of waste collection, waste minimisation and recycling. (These matters could be made the subject of Conditions if approval was given). All of these consultation letters are attached as background papers

Summary of Representations	9 letters of objection have been received on grounds including:- The site lies within the Countryside Zone wherein there is a presumption against development. Scale of development, proximity to boundaries and impact on the character of the area. Contextual information required. Height – lower ceilings and lowering the building into the ground would assist. Traffic. Overlooking. Institutional design. Impact on trees and wildlife. Detailed Landscaping Plan required. Surface water concerns. Required alterations to driveway. All letters of representation are attached as background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations Part of the site outlined in red lies within the Green Zone. This area is however outside the accepted residential curtilage of the site. Neither the existing nor the proposed building lie in this area. The building and the garden immediately around it lie within the Countryside Zone. In the Countryside Zone there is a general presumption against development. It is accepted however that not all forms of development must be precluded within this zone. The replacement of a single house with a number of flats, is not one of the development types noted as likely to be acceptable. However, policy H9 allows for the conversion of large properties into smaller units, even outside the Built Up Area. As a replacement building, the requirements of Policy G15 (Replacement Buildings) are also relevant. These state that wherever possible existing buildings should be retained and re-used rather than demolished. Any new building should enhance the site and the area. This policy has been implemented pragmatically, and where a significant enhancement of the site or a more efficient or sustainable use of a site can be achieved, the retention of an existing building has not always been insisted upon. Any application on the site must also address the requirements of Policies G2 and G3. The applicant’s Design Statement places great weight upon the States stated objective of encouraging high value residents to the Island, in the interests of the Island’s economy. This is also a material consideration in this case. Land Use Implications None. Both the existing and proposed uses are residential. Size, Scale and Siting As set out in Policy C6 (Countryside Zone) the impact upon the character of the zone is the key consideration in assessing any application therein. Although due to its position and landscaping, the existing building, and the proposal, will not be intrusive when viewed from La Route Orange, the site is very open to view from the heavily used public footpath to the south which runs from the Beauport car park to St. Brelade’s Church. Long views from St Brelades Bay are also possible. Development along this part of La Route Orange is typified by large individual houses in extremely large plots. The properties are often bordered by other more dense development, and have a large built up area to the north. The setting is not therefore a typical countryside one. However these large plots have been specifically excluded from the Built Up Area, emphasising a clear change in character, and discouraging dense development across the whole area. It is considered that a development of this site which retains its largely open character, need not in principle be harmful to the area or the Countryside Zone. Indeed a high quality development could enhance it. The existing building is described in the Planning Statement as unremarkable, but it is also inoffensive, and by its use of materials settles well into the landscape. The proposed building is intentionally of a different scale and design to suggest a grand building in extensive grounds. It scales as approximately 90m east to west, 19m deep, and 20m high on the south elevation. Provided the architect is retained to oversee any construction, the Department is confident that it will be a high quality building. The Department’s subjective assessment however is that due to its size it will have a much greater impact on the area. Design and Use of Materials The design approach is described in detail in the Planning Statement which is attached as a background paper. The design is classical. The materials include load bearing masonry with stucco rustication on the lower floors, smooth stucco above, with stone or reconstructed stone columns, balustrades, cornices, etc. Windows will be hardwood sashes and the roof slate. The style is said to be characteristic of many English seaside towns, and also seen in the Island for example at Royal Crescent, Melbourne House, Gloucester Terrace and Almorah Crescent. It is accepted that in the right hands such as this architect, that the building could be of a very high quality which would meet the Minister’s design requirements for a high quality of design. Impact on Neighbours Given the size of the site and the extent of landscaping around it, the development is unlikely to impact significantly on neighbours through overlooking or overbearing, provided that existing landscaping is retained and augmented. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The scheme includes a floor of garaging and substantial surface level areas, which would more than satisfy the Minister’s parking requirements. Transport and Technical Services have set down requirements for improvements to the access which would need to be incorporated. Some objections have referred to the likely increase in traffic generation. It is not however considered that the increase in the number of units will have any significant proportional increase in traffic on La Route Orange or the immediate vicinity. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping issues It is important that any development of the site should be well landscaped. This would be in keeping with the objectives of the development, help achieve a complete development of the site and address any potential for unacceptable levels of over looking of adjacent properties. Due to the position of the building broadly in the same position as the existing, the existing trees and landscaping should be retained. The proposal includes a bank to the southern side of the building, together with a more formal garden. Although this will introduce a more manicured appearance to what at the moment is a gentle sloping lawn, this area is clearly residential curtilage. Other Material Considerations The Planning Statement explains the rationale behind the proposals, which seek to meet the requirements for very high quality and secure 1(1)K apartments in spacious surroundings and enjoying a sea view. It is indeed a stated policy of the States to encourage high value residents in the interests of the Island economy. It is also accepted that the Island Plan allows for exceptions to normal presumptions to be made if these are in the best interests of the Island. However, the restrictive policies in the Countryside Zone, Green Zone and Zone of Outstanding Character are among the most important Planning tools in the Island Plan, which, with their predecessor policies, have largely protected the rural areas of the Island from sprawling and ribbon development, and thereby have retained much of the special character of the Island. This too is very much in the Island’s interests, to retain a high quality environment for residents, and also a high quality tourism offer. It is the quality of environment of the Island which in part will also continue to attract high value residents. Therefore, the clear presumption against development in the Countryside Zone should not be set aside lightly. Criteria (x) of policy C6 sets the test. A balance must be struck between the various objectives. The construction of a high quality building is in accordance with the Minister’s design principles, and Policy G3 (Quality of Design).The replacement of one building with another which makes more efficient use of a site, and which by its design and impact enhances the area would also be in keeping with Policy G15 (Replacement Buildings). Impact on neighbours and the necessary road improvements can be achieved. The key issue is whether the scale of the development is acceptable, and that is a matter of judgement. A number of other sites are said to have been investigated, and having found none in the Built Up Area. This site it is argued, although outside the Built Up Area, is immediately adjacent to it and not in an isolated position which would be intrusive. It will have less impact than many other developments in countryside areas. Reference has been made to three developments at La Coupe, Le Portelet and Seascale (assumed to be the Seacrest Hotel). All were originally approved by the previous Committee. The former two sites have been granted Permission for redevelopment, but in each case for a single residential building. The development of the Seacrest replaced an existing restaurant, and although the Committee of the time allowed a building larger than that which existed previously, it is not of the scale of the proposals at Quennevais House. Moreover, there other examples of situations where both the previous Planning Sub Committee and the current Planning Applications Panel have turned down schemes for the redevelopment of commercial sites in the countryside which fail to achieve a significant reduction in built mass. An example would be the Le Creux Hotel, which is quoted as one of the sites considered by the developer, where a significant reduction in floor area was required and achieved. Quennevais House however is a residential, not commercial site. The Environment Department have noted the need for a detailed Waste Management Plan. A plan was submitted with the application, and any further requirements could, if the application were to be approved, be secured by a Condition.

Officer Recommendation	NEGOTIATE A REDUCED SCHEME

Conditions	Not appropriate at this stage.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan. Planning Statement, Architect’s covering letter (8 November) and letters of explanation 26 July and 15 August.) Consultation responses. Nine Representations.

Endorsed by:

Date:

18 September 2007