Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Collingwood, Rue des Landes, St. Peter - maintain refusal of planning permission

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (20.09.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Collingwood, Rue des Landes, St. Peter.

Subject:

Collingwood, La Rue des Landes, St Peter

Demolish existing dwelling and construct 4 no. 4-bedroom 2-storey houses with parking and service road.

Decision Reference:

MD-PE-2006-0142

Exempt clause(s):

n/a

Type of Report (oral or written):

written

Person Giving Report (if oral):

n/a

Telephone or

e-mail Meeting?

n/a

Report

File ref:

PP/2006/0708

Written Report

Title:

Demolish existing dwelling and construct 4 no. 4-bedroom 2-storey houses with parking and service road. RFR of refusal of planning permission.

Written report – Author:

Lawrence Davies

Decision(s

Maintain refusal.

Reason(s) for decision:

It is considered that the site has potential for the development of 2 houses only and that the proposal would result in -

  Cramped overdevelopment

  Not mindful of its context, comprising 4 identical suburban houses

  No evidence offered that existing building is unsuitable to be retained

  No details on waste management

Action required:

Agent to be notified of decision

Signature:

(Minister)

Date of Decision:

20/09/2006

 

 

 

 

 

Collingwood, Rue des Landes, St. Peter - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: PP/2006/0708

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address

Collingwood, La Rue des Landes, St. Peter

 

 

Requested by

Mrs C Le Masurier

Agent

Arkitecture Limited

 

 

Description

Demolish existing dwelling and construct 4 No. 4 bed, 2 storey houses with parking and service road. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

 

 

Type

Planning Principle

 

 

Original Decision

REFUSED

 

 

Conditions

 

Reasons

1. The proposed scheme would result in a cramped over-development where the buildings would have a poor relationship with both one another and also surrounding buildings on adjacent sites. Therefore, the proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2, G3 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

2. The proposed development is not mindful of the context of the site and its surroundings and is therefore considered inappropriate; a low level of detail has been provided as to the style and design of the proposed houses but it would appear that they are intended to be near-identical large suburban style houses which is contrary to the character of existing development in the area. As a result of this, the proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies G3 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

3. The scheme fails to demonstrate that the existing building on the site 'Collingwood', is unable or unsuitable to be repaired or refurbished, or that the proposed new development would enhance the appearance of the site or its surroundings. Therefore, the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy G15 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

4. The scheme has not addressed the issue of waste management which is of fundamental importance for any development which would lead to the generation of a significant degree of construction waste. Therefore, the proposed development fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies WM1 and WM2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

 

 

Determined by

Delegated Refused

 

 

Date

30/05/2006

 

 

Zones

Built-Up Area

Water Pollution Safeguard Area

 

 

Policies

G3 – Quality of Design

G15 – Replacement Buildings

H8 – Housing in the Built-Up Area

WM1 – Waste Management and Recycling

WM2 – Construction and Demolition Wastes Plan

 

Recommendation

 

 

Comments on Case

The appellant’s arguments may be divided into two. Firstly, that the scheme was not unacceptable, and secondly that the department should have negotiated.

The Department holds by the reasons for refusal:

- Cramped overdevelopment;

- Not mindful of its context, comprising 4 identical suburban houses;

- There is no evidence that the existing building cannot be refurbished; &

- No details of Waste Management.

Taking these in reverse order, ascending in importance, it is indeed the case that permissions have been given on other occasions where Waste Management Plans are required by condition. However, this can only happen where the scheme is considered acceptable in all other respects. This application was not acceptable so such a condition could not be imposed. Moreover, the application should have included a WM Plan at the outset recognising the requirements of Policy WM2 of the Island Plan.

The application also failed to include any statement of why the existing building could not be retained and improved and so it failed to address Policy G15. The appellant accepts that the building could be retained, but argues that a more efficient use of the site could be achieved through its redevelopment. It is fair to say that permission has been given in other applications for the redevelopment of buildings which (in theory) could have been refurbished, where their demolition allowed for a more efficient use of the site. However, such permissions would only be given where the proposed scheme achieved a good quality development. That is not the case here and therefore the scheme fails to satisfy G15 on that ground also.

The most fundamental failings of the scheme are highlighted by Refusal Reasons 1 and 2; Policy G15 requires any redevelopment to achieve an enhancement of the site and surroundings, to avoid any unreasonable impact through visual intrusion and other amenity considerations, and be in accordance with other policies of the Plan. Those policies include G2 and H8 (both of which reiterate the requirement for any development to be in context), and G3 which, in addition, specifies key factors to be taken into account to ensure any development is respectful and of a high quality.

The appellant describes the area as having a mix of styles, yet the agent has submitted a scheme with 4 identical footprints, all described on the application form as 4-bedroom two-storey houses. Even the appellant admits that some variety would be helpful, but none was included in the application.

Moreover, although the appellant argues that the density is low, his statement accepts that this alone is a crude tool. Reference to the Leonard’s Garage application is not seen as being useful as the context of that site, adjacent to an estate of houses, as well as adjoining a category A site, is wholly different.

This area indeed includes a mix of house styles, the majority with a road frontage and long, practically shaped, gardens. Despite its alleged low density the scheme has no units which actually address the road and none have long gardens. Units 2 and 3 are shown to have shallow, irregularly shaped gardens, and the smallest, Unit 4’s, is less than 6m deep, and squeezed between the house and Unit 3.

The appellant accepts that the scheme could be improved, but feels that the problems could have been addressed through negotiation and subtle changes. However, the Department disagrees - the failings of the scheme were considered too fundamental. Had permission been given with styling reserved for example, when those details were later submitted, the Department could not reasonably try to alter the layout and the size of the houses as this would have been set in the permission. In this case the failings are not simply a matter of one issue such as the size and position of windows or the choice of materials. A conditioned permit was therefore not appropriate.

Whilst it is true that applicants can submit In Principle applications with less detail than a full application, that application will still be judged by the same policies and must, therefore, address them. In this case that includes G15, G2, G3, H8 and WM2, and these policies clearly place the onus on the applicant to demonstrate that, for example, the scheme enhances the area, that the existing building cannot be retained and how waste will be dealt with. The application as submitted failed to acknowledge this, included no details of the existing house, no waste management proposals, and failed to illustrate any attempt to address its context. It therefore failed to address key polices and could not be approved.

In the past the Department would often negotiate on schemes. It was accepted however that this is often unsuccessful and is extremely demanding on staff resources. The Island Plan therefore specifically worded certain polices to place the onus on the applicant to produce a good scheme at the outset. With resources still reducing relative to workload, and the Minister’s requirement for better quality development in accordance with policy G3, it is imperative that applicants and their agents realise their responsibility to produce good quality schemes and address the policies of the Island Plan. There is no requirement for the Department to negotiate on schemes; the requirement is for the Department to make decisions and for agents to submit appropriate schemes. For the reasons stated, the scheme was clearly unacceptable and failed to address several fundamental issues. It was wholly correct therefore that the application was refused. There may well be potential for some development on the site but, as stated, the onus is upon the applicant’s agent to take notice of the Island Plan and produce an acceptable scheme, not for the Department to do that for him.

 

 

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

 

 

Reasons

As previously

 

 

Background Papers

1:2500 Site Plan

 

 

 

 

Endorsed by

 

Date

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to top
rating button