This section will consider the issues which the Master felt had not been adequately addressed as part of the original planning process. As noted above in his final decision, the Master refers to the issues set out within paragraphs 46 to 49 of his judgement. These are as follows (again, quoted directly). After each point, further discussion of the policy implications has been provided; - It would appear that the suggestion that Camellia Cottage would need to be demolished was accepted on the basis of a statement from or on behalf of the Applicant without further enquiry. No consideration seems to have been given as to whether it could be retained. No enquiries or reports seem to have been provided or required as to the state of the Cottage or the possibilities of its refurbishment. Furthermore, incorrect information had been provided in suggesting that the Cottage was built in the early 20th Century when it was, apparently, constructed in 1969.
On 30/11/11, a further letter was received from the most recent occupant of Camellia Cottage (a civil engineer). From first hand experience, he recounted a number of problems and shortcomings with the existing property including damp and water ingress, cracks and (partly) inoperative heating systems. However, of most significance, he described the rear section of the building as being ‘unstable with clear evidence of substantial rock falls’ having occurred to the rear of the building. It is acknowledged that this letter was received only after the decision had been taken on the application and therefore it would not have been available to the Panel at the time of its original decision. Notwithstanding these identified defects, the Department recognises that it would not be impossible to retain the existing building and that, with sufficient investment, it is likely that it could be repaired and refurbished to a satisfactory condition. Indeed, the same could almost certainly be said about most existing buildings. The Island Plan states that ‘the Minister aims to promote a culture of re-use of buildings rather than demolition’ and Policy GD 2 states that ‘the demolition of a building or part of a building will not be permitted unless the proposed development… involves the demolition of a building or part of a building that it is not appropriate in sustainability terms to repair or refurbish.’ This is not the same thing as a complete moratorium on demolition and replacement which would be an unreasonable policy position to adopt. The effect of the policy is to set a strong presumption in favour of the retention of existing buildings, unless there is a strong and compelling argument to permit demolition. In this case, the Department believes that there is. The house is not in a good condition (albeit it could probably be refurbished) with the quarry face pressing against its rear section. In addition, it is not considered to be a particularly attractive property. However, more significantly, the applicants have stressed that the demolition of the existing building is essential to provide access through to the rear of the site for the heavy plant and machinery which is required for the stabilisation works to the quarry face. More generally, as the Minister will be aware, the 2011 Island Plan effectively ruled out the re-zoning of any new land in countryside areas for the provision of new housing. Instead, one of the Island Plan’s central policy objectives is to focus all new development within existing settlement areas and to make best use of those areas already zoned as Built Up Area. The Built Up Area by its very nature contains existing buildings and sometimes it will be necessary and entirely appropriate to permit demolition of certain buildings if it allows for better and more efficient use of such areas (i.e. optimising the density of development). This has often been permitted, even under the 2011 Island Plan. In this case, it is considered that demolition and redevelopment of the site is acceptable as it will enable a much better use of the site in line with this broad policy aim. There is a balance which needs to be struck between insisting on the reuse and retention of existing buildings, and allowing their demolition and replacement where there are wider benefits to be secured i.e. if a new scheme will result in more efficient use of land, as well as the removal of poor quality buildings and, in their place, the construction of modern buildings built to 21st century standards of environmental performance. Therefore, setting aside for one moment the issue of what is proposed to be built back in its place, there are considered to be significant wider benefits in permitting the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site (in whatever form that may take). It is of course a matter for the Minister to weigh these various policy objectives accordingly in his reconsideration of this application. Finally, the issue of the date of construction of the existing cottage has been raised. The applicants had suggested that the building was of early 20th century origin, whereas it now seems more likely that it dates from 1969. The argument has been made that, as a more-recently constructed building, it will be in a better condition than would be the case had it been an older building. This is not necessarily true and in this instance, irrespective of the date of construction, numerous defects have been identified with the existing building as outlined above – the same defects, and the same pressing need for access to the site, would exist whatever the date of construction. - It does not appear, from the material which I have seen, that consideration was given as to whether it would be more appropriate for Camellia Cottage to be replaced by one building having regard to the planning Policy GD 2. This seems largely to have been ignored on the basis of the importance applied by the decision makers to Policy GD 3 (regarding the Built-Up Zone).
Had the applicants applied for a lesser number of new dwellings, then it is entirely probable that the Planning Applications Panel would have seen fit to grant planning permission. However, as it was, the application was for three new dwellings on the site and so that was the scheme which was considered. During the course of the Department’s (and subsequently the Panel’s) consideration of the application, the appropriateness of the proposed scheme was fully considered and it was argued at the time by objectors, amongst other arguments, that the scheme represented an over-development of the site. However, having considered and weighed these arguments, and in light of other policy considerations, the Panel was comfortable with the scheme and saw fit to grant permission for the development of three new dwellings. There have been occasions in connection with other sites when the Minister, whether in person or via his Panel or Department, has refused permission outright, or requested changes to a scheme, on these lines. In this instance, this was not considered to be necessary. - Again it is not clear as to how much detailed consideration was given to the requirements and express terms of Policy BE 3 relating to the Green Backdrop Zone. For ease of reference I set out again the terms of that Policy which are as follows:-
“The Green Backdrop Zone is designated on the Island and Town Proposals Maps. Within this zone, development will only be permitted where: - The natural landscape remains the dominant element in the scene;
- It pays particular regard to the retention of existing vegetation;
- It presents satisfactory proposals for new planting; and
- It accords with all other principles and policies of the Plan.”
There are a number of matters which I do not consider have been properly addressed. These are:- a) it is not clear that natural landscape will remain the dominant element in the scene on the basis of the approved plans; b) no regard or consideration seems to have been given as to the possibility of retaining any established trees on the roadside of the site; c) the proposals for replanting seem to be requirements on the new houses themselves. Given this fact, does what is proposed constitute retaining the natural landscape as the dominant element or protecting the green backdrop? The preamble to Policy BE 3 in the Island Plan 2011 at paragraph 6.66 says as follows:- “The Green Backdrop Zone policy is still considered a useful tool in achieving an appropriate lower intensity of building and a higher degree of open space and planting than elsewhere. But it is acknowledged that greater resolve in its application is needed than has been applied in the past. Accordingly, the new Island Plan retains the Green Backdrop Zone, but it has been refined to more accurately define this significant environment.” It is not clear to me if, and if so to what extent, regard has been made to this clear statement in considering the present application. The Department would contend that the issue of the green backdrop to the site was considered extensively during the course of the application period. Indeed, the application was actually deferred from the first public meeting of the Planning Applications Panel for reasons to do with this issue. However, the Master of the Court has identified three matters specifically relating to the Green Backdrop Zone policy (Policy BE 3 of the 2011 Island Plan) which he does not believe have been properly addressed – a, b & c above. Essentially, the argument put forward by the applicants is that the remedial works to the quarry are essential, irrespective of whether or not permission is granted for the current application. Therefore, there will be an unavoidable loss, at least in part, to the existing green backdrop to the site. This is because the necessary stabilisation works include the removal of some existing vegetation and the spraying of a ‘shotcrete’ surface to part of the face of the old quarry. The applicants have stressed that every effort has been made to mitigate the effects of the remedial works and retain and enhance the green character of the site where possible. This is to be achieved through the tinting of the ‘shotcrete’ surface, the introduction of appropriate climbing plants to the rockface once works are complete, as well as the introduction of significant areas of planting interspersed throughout the scheme as an integral aspect of its design. Indeed, the new houses have been specifically designed to include a number of tiered levels thereby enabling integral planting throughout. A Planning condition is proposed to ensure the retention of suitable planting into the future and the applicants have noted that they would apply restrictive covenants to the properties to ensure that future owners would be required to maintain the vegetation. However, it should be noted that this second point would not be controllable through the planning application process. At present, the existing dwelling occupies a relatively small corner of the site whilst the rest of the site is largely overgrown with natural vegetation which has amassed over many years. The Department would concede that, compared to the existing situation, the proposed development does result in the loss of a significant proportion of existing natural vegetation. However, the site has been zoned as Built Up Area meaning that there is a presumption in favour of its development for new housing. It is matter, therefore, of balancing these two policy objectives which, on the face of it, are in conflict – i.e. on the one hand, the need to retain existing planting as the main focus of the site and, on the other hand, the requirement to permit new dwellings within this zone. The original reason for approval stated that the development would still be set against and viewed against a large expanse of ‘green backdrop’ – we would reiterate this point now. In addition, coupled with the re-planting forming part of the remedial works and also the programme of integral planting throughout the new development, the Department would argue that this is a sensible and pragmatic approach bearing in mind these policy provisions. - In the reasons provided for the decision as set out in the Planning Permit dated 06th October 2011, there is no reference to Policy GD 5. This is, on the face of it, somewhat surprising given the sensitive nature of the site. It is not apparent, therefore, what consideration was given to this particular Policy in coming to a decision.
The preamble to Policy GD 5 states that new development can have a significant visual impact upon the Island's important skylines, views and vistas, and it is vitally important that consideration is given to the widest visual impact of development proposals. New development can affect skylines, views and vistas…by detracting from the quality of a landscape or townscape setting, or the setting of a landmark building. The policy itself states that; ‘The Minister for Planning and Environment will seek to protect or enhance the skyline, strategic views, important vistas, and the setting of landmark and Listed buildings and places. Proposed development that has a seriously detrimental impact, by virtue of its siting, scale, profile or design, in terms of its affect upon or obscuring of the skyline, strategic views, important vistas, and the setting of landmark and Listed buildings and places will not be permitted’. For the avoidance of doubt, the issue of the visual impact of the development and its effect upon the character of the immediate area, and the wider townscape setting of Gorey Harbour, has been a crucial and fundamental consideration of the application from the outset; it is not considered that the development would have a ‘seriously detrimental impact’ (the test within the policy), by virtue of its siting, profile or design, upon the skyline, strategic views or important vistas. However, it is acknowledged that policy GD 5 was not explicitly referred to within the original application report. As part of the submission, a series of realistic photo-montage images were prepared by the architect for the scheme showing the proposed development from a number of locations near and far in order to allow for an informed assessment of the proposed scheme on this basis. The proposed scheme is viewed within the general context of greenery and development along Le Mont de Gouray which leads up and away from the area around the harbour. Whilst these are reasonably large dwellings, it is considered that they sit comfortably within this setting and are mindful of the surrounding buildings and general topography. They are not considered to be overly prominent or to unduly impinge upon important public views across the harbour area. The final paragraph of the Department’s original report is worth reiterating as this remains our position on the application; Stylistically, the built context to Gorey harbour is eclectic in nature, reflecting a settlement which has developed and evolved over many centuries. Whilst some of the buildings are indeed centuries old, there has been a lot of change since; in particular, there has been a significant amount of post-war development. In the department’s view, this latest scheme for the redevelopment of the Camellia Cottage quarry site represents a well-designed and carefully considered 21st century addition to an evolving townscape – a modern intervention which respects the general form and pattern of development in the vicinity and makes good use of a difficult site. | 
gov.je