Policy Considerations The Architect’s Design Statement notes a number of polices from the Island Plan which may be relevant. It is considered that those most relevant are the standard Policies G2 (General Development considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design). In addition to the policy for this specific area (Countryside Zone Policy C6) and the use specific policies TR1 (Development of New Tourist Accommodation) and TR5 (Development of Recreational Resources). Policy NR2 seeks to prevent any development which may pollute groundwater. In the Countryside Zone there is a strong presumption against development. The policy (C6) does however list certain types of development which may be considered acceptable. This includes the conversion of existing buildings, extensions to existing tourist accommodation where that is in accordance with Policy TR1, and small scale new cultural and recreational facilities. Policy TR1 (Development of New Tourist Accommodation) allows for new tourist accommodation, but only in the Built Up Area. In the Countryside Zone extensions to existing tourist accommodation or the conversion of existing buildings will normally be permitted where the proposal satisfies a number of listed criteria. Policy TR5 (Development and Recreational Resources) states that the proposals for development and recreational resources will normally be permitted provided that a series of criteria are met. The site is also within the area covered by the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework. As Policy SO3 states, the main purpose of this is to protect and enhance the natural environment of the area. Policy SO10, states that small scale leisure, retail and other tourist facilities may, in principle, be acceptable. Policy SO32 (Recreation and Tourism Development) notes that these will only be approved if set criteria are met. Policy SO37 (Tourist Accommodation) sets a strong presumption against new hotel development including the extension of existing facilities. Self-catering facilities will not be permitted where it would result in the construction of new buildings, or the intensification of the use of the site. The Environmental Impact Assessment submitted to support the application notes the value of the existing operation, both in providing recreational facilities to visitors and local residents, but also the significant benefits from the self-catering units. The facilities offer a wide range of facilities including golf, indoor tennis, a pool, a gym, restaurant, self-catering lodges, indoor football pitches and an outdoor pursuit centre run by Pure Adventure Limited. It is estimated that there are now 5,500 visitors to the site per week. It is estimated that last year there was 3,650 self-catering guests equating to 25,623 guest nights. This represents 12% of the Islands self-catering accommodation. This has a significant beneficial multiplier effect on the local economy. The increased number of units proposed would add to this without a significant increase in traffic. It is estimated that there would be an additional 66 traffic movements per day. At a broad level therefore there is an arguable conflict between the commercial benefits to both the site and the Island of allowing for additional recreation and in particular self-catering facilities. This however has to be balanced against the environmental impact of creating such new facilities, particularly where these require new structures to be constructed in the countryside wherein there is a general presumption against development. Whilst in principle Policy C6 together with TR1 and TR5 potentially allow for some development for recreational or self-catering uses, (subject to meeting set criteria), the requirements of Policy SO37 of the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework in particular seeks to prohibit the development of self-catering accommodation where it would involve the construction of a new building or the intensification of the use of a site. The proposal includes five phases. The first is the construction of a new green keeper’s compound. This involves the construction of a new building on part of the existing putting green. Although, on balance, recommended for approval by the Department, this was considered unacceptable by Planning Applications Panel. Before the final decision could be issued that application was withdrawn. This building is on a currently undeveloped area, in that it does not include any buildings. It is understood that the existing facilities are split between two locations, but given the master plan now before the Department, it would appear that there are clear opportunities for the construction of one consolidated compound area elsewhere on the site where there are existing buildings, rather than to create a new building on an undeveloped area of the site. The second phase includes the construction of a storage shed, six self-catering units, and a total of 12 staff units. This is on land to the east of the existing self-catering lodges. Arguably, an extension of existing tourist accommodation may be acceptable under Policy C6 and TR1. Policy SO37 however states a strong presumption against the construction of new buildings for self-catering facilities. There is no direct allowance for staff accommodation. Policy H14 (Staff Accommodation) states that where there is a proven need for such accommodation it may be supported. In exceptional circumstances where it is required as a place of work it may be outside the Built Up Area, but it should be provided through the conversion of existing buildings or temporary buildings, which can be removed when the need for staff accommodation no longer exists. In exceptional circumstances new buildings may be considered. It is not considered that an adequate case has been put forward to demonstrate an essential need for this quantity of staff accommodation on this site. The third phase includes the conversion of three staff units to A-H Housing, and the relocation of gym facilities into the tennis centre. The latter is not considered unacceptable, as it replaces one leisure facility with another. It is likely that the gym will be used more intensively than a tennis court, but the traffic generation likely, given the current levels of traffic generation and traffic in the area, are not considered so great as to justify the refusal of permission. Policy C6 does allow for the creation of residential units by the conversion of existing buildings. However, in this case the creation of three open market units would be at the expense of three staff units, which are then proposed to be replaced elsewhere on the site in new buildings. The net result therefore is the construction of new development to create A-H Housing. This is clearly contrary to the policies of the relevant plans. The fourth phase includes the replacement of the existing gym and staff accommodation, with new self-catering. This involves the construction of new buildings and facilities, both for self-catering facilities and elsewhere on the site for the replacement of existing staff accommodation. The same concerns arise as was the case for the second phase. The final fifth phase is the conversion of the Alamo building currently part used by the green keeper, to create one self-catering unit. The policies allow for conversion of buildings including the creation of self-catering units. This is a Registered Building, and the details of this will need to be very carefully considered. In principle, the conversion may be acceptable. This does not however imply that the Department should automatically allow for replacement of the green keeper’s facilities by approving the new compound (Phase 1). Taking all of these issues into account, the Department’s view is that the case for the construction of new staff accommodation has not been adequately made. In addition, a decision has to be made whether it is appropriate to allow for a relatively considerable increase in the number of self-catering lodges on the site, given the policy considerations noted above. In addition, the Department remains to be convinced that the construction of a new green keeper’s compound on land where there is currently no development is acceptable. The Department’s overall conclusion is that the amount of new construction proposed fails to adequately take into account the presumptions against development in the area and the fact that the site lies within the Countryside Zone, and in part, the Zone of Outstanding Character, rather than the Built Up Area. Greater effort should be made to re-use existing buildings and areas where buildings currently exist where these are no longer of practical use and need to be replaced. The Department is not yet convinced of the merits of Phase A – the greenkeepers shed. Some development may be acceptable within the area to the east of the existing self catering chalets shown as Phase B as this is surrounded by development and not visible from the bay. Within Phase C the new a-h units in the third phase are not acceptable if these lead to a need to build new staff accommodation elsewhere. The use of part of the tennis court building for the gym is acceptable. Some redevelopment of existing buildings in the area shown as Phase D may be acceptable as may the conversion of the Alamo (Phase E). Land Use Implications See Policy Considerations above. Size, Scale and Siting See Policy Considerations above. This is an application for Outline Planning Permission and no details have been submitted of the design of the buildings. Design and Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above Impact on Neighbours As set out in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the applicant’s Design Statement, consideration has been taken of the impact on adjoining properties. In addition landscaping is proposed in various areas. It is not considered that the development will so significantly change the way the site is used, or leads to such problems of noise or traffic generation that would cause an impact on neighbours which would require any application to be refused in principle. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The site enjoys adequate access, and the proposal suggests that adequate car parking will be provided. The Department considers that the increase in traffic generation proposed would not be so significant as to justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Foul Sewage Disposal Soakaways are proposed for surface water. All new accommodation will use mains water and mains drains, and the wash bay for the green keeper is also proposed to run to the mains. Landscaping issues The applicant has clearly thought about the possibility of additional landscaping to help any development assimilate into the landscape. This would need to be detailed as part of any subsequent application if the master plan were to be accepted. Other Material Considerations The scale of development proposed would require a Percentage for Art feature to be incorporated. The applicant has stated that this will be met. It is anticipated that any waste would be minimal and is proposed to be re-used on site as far as possible. It is not anticipated that material will need to be imported for landscaping or any other earthworks. |