Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, St. Ouen: Determination of Planning Application P/2010/1064

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 4 November 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0102			Application Number: P/2010/1064 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen, , JE3 2FR		Date of Decision Summary:		4 November 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Andy 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:		N/A
Written Report Title :	Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen,		Date of Written Report:		9 August 2011
Written Report Author:	Andy Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen, , JE3 2FR Demolish existing garage. Remove main house roof and replace with green roof and terrace. Construct extension to North-East elevation to provide new garage, storage and bedrooms. Various external alterations. AMENDED PLANS: Additional information submitted.
Decision(s): This application was considered and approved by the Planning Applications Panel on 11 November 2010 after a Site Visit and receiving representations in writing and at the meeting. Permission was granted under the (former) 2002 Island Plan. Following the issue of the permission, a Third Party Appeal was received. However, before the case went to Court it came to light that the Panel was not properly constituted when it had determined the application at its Hearing in November 2010. The application was therefore brought back to the (properly constituted) Panel in May 2011. At this meeting the application was deferred after it was contested that one of the drawings included in the PowerPoint slides submitted by the applicant’s architect had not been advertised. The amended drawings were then advertised. The applicant also submitted a plan to show the proposed location of the tight tank. This too was advertised. The Minister heard the application at a meeting on 12 September 2011 and deferred a decision for a Site Visit. The Minister visited the application site, the adjacent property to the north and also viewed the site and the scaffold poles erected, from a variety of points in the bay. The Minister considered that the scheme was acceptable provided that the angled first floor window was redesigned so that it looked only west down the side of the proposed extension and not at an angle across the property. The Minister also felt that the opportunity should be taken to improve existing levels of privacy between the application site and the house to the north by adding a privacy screen at the north end of the existing balcony. In addition The Minister considered that whilst the proposed drainage system satisfied Planning and Building Bye Laws requirements, the opportunity should be taken to move the tight tank further from the northern neighbours’ borehole and towards the house Le Vouest. A new position has therefore been submitted which shows the Tight Tank closer to the house Le Vouest and further from the neighbours’ borehole. A small alteration has also been made to the access to allow a tanker to park without obstructing other vehicles. On this basis the Minister approved the application subject to these points and the conditions below.
Reason(s) for Decision: 1. Before development commences, a plan must be submitted to the Minister, and agreed, to confirm the extent of the authorised curtilage. It is expected that this would project no further east than the rear elevation of the proposed rear wing of the extension hereby permitted. 2. All materials including details of all jointing and fixings must be agreed with the Department Architect. Details of any solar or photovoltaic panels or heat pump(s) which do not qualify as Permitted Development under the Planning and Building (General Development)(Jersey) Order 2011, must be agreed with the Minister. 3. The property must be connected to a tight tank prior to the occupation of any of the additional accommodation hereby approved in accordance with the details submitted. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011,or any amendment to or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure, tank, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission or referred to in Conditions 2 and 6, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. 5. The species to be used on the sedum roof must be agreed with the Minister prior to its construction. 6. Prior to the commencement of development a Site Plan including existing and proposed levels and 2 perpendicular cross scetions shall be submitted to, and agreed by the Minister, to show the extent and contours of the raising of the front garden levels, and the materials to be used. 7. The first floor north facing corridor windows in the extension hereby approved shall at all times be glazed in obscure glass. Reasons 1. As part of the development The Minister wishes to ensure that this area does not become domesticated and wishes to agree a limited curtilage which will give greater control over any future development on the land to the east of the dwelling. 2. To ensure a satisfactory quality of construction. 3. To reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. 4. This is a sensitive site and the Minister wishes to retain control over future development on the site. 5. To ensure the species are appropriate to the area. 6. The area concerned and the increase in level is modest but the Minister wishes to agree specific details in the interests of the appearance of the site. 7. To avoid any unacceptable overlooking of the adjoining property. Proposed Reason For Approval in the event that the application is approved: Planning Permission has been granted subject to Conditions following careful consideration of the relevant Planning Policies and all consultations and representations recieved, the information submitted, the merits of the scheme, and having visited the site and viewed it from the adjacent property to the north and other viewpoints. It is recognised that the site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, wherein Policy C5 set a general presumption against development. The site also lay within the area covered by the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework which, inter alia, sought to control development in the interests of maintaining the special character of the area. Policy C5 (Green Zone) of the Island Plan and Policies SO10 and SO15 of the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework did not however prohibit extensions to dwellings, and such proposals may be permitted where the proposal would not detract from or unreasonably harm the sensitive character and scenic quality of this area and provided the impact upon neighbouring properties is not unacceptable, and that no highways problem or separate unit is created. Many extensions to houses have been approved in this area where it has been considered that these criteria have been met, and this application has been assessed in the same manner. The requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) G3 (Quality of Design) and NR2 (Foul Sewerage Facilities) have also been considered in particular in respect of the impact of the development on adjoining properties, the area and foul drainage. The 2011 Island Plan has subsequently been adopted and the site now lies within the Coastal National Park. In this area there is the strongest presumption against development, (Policy NE6). It is acknowledged however that there are existing buildings and uses in the Park. House Extensions are specifically noted as a type of development which may be acceptable as an excepetion to the general presumption against development provided they do not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area and where their design is appropriate relative to existing buildings and their context. It is considered that the extension of the dwelling as proposed will not have any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the immediate area or the Coastal National Park as a whole taking into account its particular site context and setting against the hillside, the setback and the modest increase in height above the existing ridge. The use of materials proposed for the extension and for the remodelling of the front part of the house are considered to improve the appearance of the existing building, helping it to blend into its setting, and the scheme is supported by the Department Architect. The scale of the rear wing of the previous refused scheme has been significantly and satisfactorily reduced. A privacy screen has been included to the top floor balcony and the existing balcony, the window of the rear bedroom has been angled to avoid overlooking, and a Condition is imposed requiring the first floor north facing windows in the extension to be obscurely glazed. It is not considered that the scheme will result in harm to the adjacent properties. The small incursion into the slope at the rear of the property is not considered detrimental to the character of the area, and with the applicant's agreement a Condition is imposed to agree the extent of the residential curtilage which the Minister expects will not extend further east than that of the adjoining properties. This will reduce the size of the approved residential curtilage and prevent future domestication of this area. Notwithstanding the objections raised, the application is not for the creation of a separate unit or an annexe. As the application is otherwise considered acceptable, but will increase the number of bedrooms and hence the potential occupancy of the building, a tight tank is proposed in the absence of mains drains. This has been re-positioned away from neighbours’ boreholes and is considered a reasonable and realistic solution, which meets the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. It is therefore considered that the development satisfies the requirements of Island Plan 2011 policies GD1, GD7, NE6 and LWM2.
Resource Implications: The decision may be challenged by a third party. However, if refused the applicant is likely to make a first party appeal. The resource implications are the same in either event.
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, St. Ouen: Determination of Planning Application P/2010/1064

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

P/2010/1064

Site Address	Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, St. Ouen, JE3 2FR.

Applicant	Dr A Celik

Description	Demolish existing garage. Remove main house roof and replace with green roof and terrace. Construct extension to North-East elevation to provide new garage, storage and bedrooms. Various external alterations. AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	23/07/2010

Zones	Coastal National Park (2011 Island Plan) Green Zone and St Ouens Bay Planning Framework (2002 Island Plan)

Policies	2011 Island Plan GD1 - General Development Considerations GD7 - Design Quality NE6 – Coastal National Park LWM2 – Foul Sewerage Facilities 2002 Island Plan C5 - Green Zone G2 – General Development Considerations G3 – Quality of Design NR2 – Foul Sewerage Facilities C7 – St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework

Reason for Referral	Referral to Minister and number of objections

Summary/

Conclusion

This application was considered and approved by the Planning Applications Panel on 11 November 2010 after a Site Visit and receiving representations in writing and at the meeting. Permission was granted under the (former) 2002 Island Plan. Following the issue of the permission, a Third Party Appeal was received. However, before the case went to Court it came to light that the Panel was not properly constituted when it had determined the application at its Hearing in November 2010. The application was therefore brought back to the (properly constituted) Panel in May 2011. At this meeting the application was deferred after it was contested that one of the drawings included in the PowerPoint slides submitted by the applicant’s architect had not been advertised.

That has now been overcome as the drawings have been formally submitted and advertised. The applicant also submitted a plan to show the proposed location of the tight tank. This too has been advertised.

This is an unusual case in that the application was submitted, assessed and a permit issued all under the 2002 Island Plan, but having been deferred it is to be considered by the Minister following the adoption of the 2011 Island Plan. It is important however that the Minister is aware of the recent history of the application in reaching a reasonable decision.

Other than the details noted above, the scheme has not been amended and the Department’s original report is attached in full together with the representations received prior to and after the report was produced.

The application proposes the remodelling and extension of the existing house. The site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan wherein there was a general presumption against development, and also in the area covered by the St Ouens Bay Planning Framework. In this area therefore the protection of the character of the landscape was paramount. These policies did however make provision for extensions to existing dwellings subject to them having no adverse landscape impact.

A previous (December 2009) application had been refused on the basis of the scale of the extensions and the applicant has attempted to address the Panel’s previous concerns by reducing the apparent scale of the extension and deleting the main first floor element of the east wing.

The impact upon the area and neighbour’s amenities are both matters of judgement. The Department’s view however is that cladding the existing first floor in timber will reduce the visual impact of that part of the building, and that the set back of the extension from the existing front elevation will not result in material harm to the character of the area. The Department’s attention has also been drawn to other house extensions which were allowed in this area throughout the 2002 Island Plan period.

The previous application was not refused on grounds of overlooking, and the layout of windows has been altered further to address any potential concern.

The extension involves some excavation of the bank at the rear of the property. In the Department’s original report it was concluded that this was not unreasonable and that the applicant was agreeable to setting a limited residential curtilage even though they believed that the land to the rear was authorised curtilage. Subsequently the archive file has been retrieved and the approved 1972 permission Site Plan shows that a large area to the rear (east side) of the house is authorised residential curtilage, including the area of the bank where the extension is proposed. It is still recommended however that a condition be imposed to limit the extent of the domestic curtilage to the rear of the extension, thereby ensuring that the remainder of the area would remain untouched. The applicant has previously indicated that he would be agreeable to such a condition.

The Department had required that a tight tank be installed. The location of this is shown on the amended plans and is considered acceptable under the Jersey Building Bye Laws requirements.

Officer

Recommendation

Approve

Site Description	Existing detached house overlooking St. Ouen’s Bay. The front (south-west) elevation is granite at the ground floor, but rendered at the upper floor. The light colour of this upper floor makes the building very clearly visible in long views. The roof shape is unusual comprising two mono-pitched roofs. At the rear is a garage and behind the site the escarpment rises up to give a natural backdrop to the site.

Relevant Planning History	The previous application reference P/2009/2329 for the construction of an extension to the north-east elevation, and various external alterations to include a balcony and terrace was refused by the Planning Applications Panel in May of 2010. The reason for refusal was as follows:- The site lies within the Green Zone wherein there is a general presumption against development. It also lies within the area covered by the St. Ouen's Bay Planning Framework. Island Plan Policy C5 (i) does make provision for the construction of domestic extensions, but only where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of this zone. In all cases, the appropriate test as to whether a development proposal will be permitted will be the impact on the visually sensitive character of this area, and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the Plan. Whilst the principle of extending and altering the house in the style proposed is accepted, it is considered that due to the apparent scale of the rear (garage and bedroom) wing, the proposals as submitted will result in an increase in the scale and impact which would be detrimental to the character of the area, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Island Plan Policy C5, and Policies G2 (i) and (ii) and G3 (i). Policy SO10 of the St. Ouen's Bay Planning Framework also accepts that alterations to, and extensions of, buildings for residential use, may be appropriate development. Policy SO15 (i) states that extensions and alterations will only be permitted where, inter alia, the proposal does not detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring buildings. For the reasons set out above, it is considered that the proposal would detract from the character of the area and the setting of the building, and therefore the proposal also fails to satisfy Policy SO15.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	One dwelling.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	One dwelling.

Consultations	Environmental Protection – in their response of 18 October, note concern with the raising of the lawn using demolition material as the proposed infilling is in close proximity to both the neighbours borehole (less than 10 metres) and the applicants own borehole (which is understood to be closer). There is a significant risk that the filling, using recycled demolition material, could impact these boreholes and pose a risk to both parties’ drinking water supplies. If the applicant wishes to continue with this aspect of the proposal they should ensure that only clean, uncontaminated and inert materials are used. In addition, the applicant/agent should also carry out a risk assessment to ensure that the use of these materials does not present an unacceptable risk of pollution to these boreholes and others in the area. In addition, the hydrologist notes that the scale of the redevelopment of the property at Le Vouest is substantial and, if associated with a marked increase in occupancy, could potentially lead to a marked increase in water demand at the property. No mains water supply is available in the area, and no abstraction source is registered for use at Le Vouest, but the water supply to this property is almost certainly provided by a borehole or well, in which case it would be necessary to request that the owner remedies the situation as required under the Water Resources (Jersey) Law, 2007. This is a separate consideration to the Planning application. This dependence on individual private supplies has lead to a significant concentration of sources in close proximity to one another. Under such circumstances the abstraction of the relatively small quantities required to meet normal domestic requirements is unlikely to have any notable impact on the other boreholes. However, if the occupancy of one of the properties were to increase markedly, the resulting increased abstraction could adversely impact yields obtainable from nearby boreholes, and in a worse case scenario decrease to declining yields that are no longer capable of meeting existing requirements. A view of the plans however shows that the property will have three bedrooms of redevelopment, as is currently the case with a further potentially dual purpose playroom/bedroom. This suggests that the normal level of occupancy is not likely to increase significantly, the overall domestic water demand is unlikely to increase significantly and that the post development abstraction from the source is unlikely to increase to a degree which will create a significant additional impact on nearby borehole abstractions. It is noted that foul drainage is by a communal septic tank and soakaway which will need to be investigated further should Permission be given. The Environmental Protection Section would expect that if these further investigations lead to any proposal to replace the existing facilities with some alternative, such proposals will be forwarded for separate assessment and consideration by the Environmental Protection Section, given the proximity of the water sources of other properties, and the location directly down underground gradient of Le Vouest. TTS (Drainage) Section - in their response of 6 August note that the property drains with Westward House and Les Vaux to a Tuke and Bell treatment plant septic tank system. The filter bed rails are dirty and the tipper bucket does not tip. The system has been serviced since last visited on 6 January 2010. If an alternative system is considered the location and access route for tankers must be checked and approved by TTS. The Natural Environment Section of the Environment Department – in a response of 6 August note that Le Vouest is situated above St. Ouen’s Bay and in close proximity of St. Ouen’s Pond SSI, less than 1 kilometre from the Les Mielles Nature Reserve. The concept of incorporating a green roof is commendable, however, in a sensitive and fragile location such as this, it does have associated risks. Some species of sedum can be invasive and it would cause ecological problems if one of these species was to establish in a sensitive area such as St. Ouen’s Bay. It is therefore essential that the entire species list planned for the roof must be sent to the Environment Department for review, prior to any work being carried out. All of the consultation responses are attached as background papers

Summary of Representations	25 letters of representation have been received from 9 different parties. For the avoidance of doubt, all of these letters are attached in full as background papers. This includes 5 letters of objection from 2 addresses in response to the advertisement of the latest details. These raise concerns including:- Proposed development comprising 8 bedrooms will accommodate up to 10 people. The existing septic tank and soakaway cannot cope with this intensification of use. If some waste is directed to this septic tank and soakaway and some to a new tight tank, there will be no control on how this split is maintained and therefore a likelihood that additional waste will be directed towards the septic tank and soakaway. The location of the proposed tight tank is unacceptable and its size inadequate. A suitable case and necessary information has not been submitted with the application as required by Policy LWM2. Tight tank breaches planning policy, infringes Building Regulations and will cause loss of amenity to neighbouring properties. The site lies within the Coastal National Park wherein there is a strong presumption against development. In conflict with that policy this development will result in intensification of use, provide inadequate drainage, will result in the loss of gorse and habitat and fails to reduce the visual impact of the existing building. The development is contrary to the spatial strategy which seeks to reduce the reliance on the use of the private car. During the course of the application a number of issues have been raised including:- The original drawings included unauthorised works on a shared boundary. (These have subsequently been removed in the Amended Plans). No development should be allowed above the proposed garage in the future. The proposals will place unacceptable pressure on the existing Tuke and Bell drainage system and if a tight tank is proposed, none is shown on the application drawings. Given the requirements of the Building Regulations, UK practive and the proximity to other houses and boreholes, it is not considered that such a tank can be appropriately located on this site. The proposed potential increase in occupancy (up to 266%) cannot therefore be accommodated. Southern boundary hedge should be retained to ensure no loss of privacy, in which case there is no objection to the windows on this elevation. A screen must be included on the south western end of the balcony, as promised by the applicant. The proposals are contrary to Policies G2, G3, G5, NR2, SO10, SO12, SO15, and SO16. The three houses in this group were designed to work together, with Le Vouest intentionally underplayed. The proposed extensions would make it overbearing, crowding out the other houses. It would be out of keeping, vastly increase the bulk and footprint, and destroy lines of sight, therefore leading to overlooking. The relevant planning policies permit no increase in footprint, scale or size in the St. Ouen’s Bay Area, and no increase in foul water entering the groundwater. This property is not appropriate for extensions of this size. The area proposed is no less than that previously refused and the footprint is larger. The proposals include an incursion into the gorse and cotil of a 110 square metres. Although the Department has argued that the extent of the residential curtilage is unclear, this is incorrect and the break between the residential curtilage and the natural land beyond is clear. The footprint of the new wing (excluding the existing and proposed garages) is larger than the two storey part of the existing house. The proposal is not to extend Le Vouest, but to build a second and a bigger Le Vouest at right angles to the original, contrary to Policies SO15 and SO16. The proposals are tantamount to the construction of a new house, and Policy SO16 says that any new property should be a similar size to the existing. The proposals include a 74% increase in footprint from 146 square metres to 254sq.m (more than the previously refused 242sq.m), and an 83% increase in floor space (234 – 428sq.m). The proposals will include an additional five rooms which irrespective of the designation shown will be used as bedrooms, thereby significantly increasing the occupancy of the site and the drainage output. The property also includes 7 w.c’s showing a considerable increase in occupancy. The development is too big for a Special Area. The comparison calculations put forward by the architect are inaccurate. The lower ground floor is likely to be used as a granny annexe contrary to Policy SO15. The large storage room with windows is probably not intended to be used exclusively for storage and will thereby allow a further intensification of the use of the building. The flat roof design is out of keeping. The photomontages submitted give an unrealistic impression. A scaffolding profile is imperative. The required Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment set out in Policy SO12 has not been submitted. Overlooking to the north, which could only be removed by the deletion of windows or the use of high level windows or obscure glazing on the north side. The building is capable of re-use and refurbishment and therefore the redevelopment is contrary to Policy SO16. The site lies within the Coastal National Park proposed in the draft Island Plan. Approval would run contrary to the recent Royal Court decisions (Steenson and Ferrera). In the former case, the Department was found to have taken inadequate account of the site’s location within the Green Zone, and the amenities of adjacent properties. In the latter, the Department was criticised for trying to mediate between an objector and applicant. Proposal includes inadequate car parking and turning. If, as it appears the front garden will be dug out, this will require a 14ft to 15 ft high retaining wall to be constructed on the southern boundary, which would be unacceptable. No details have been submitted of the proposed location of an oil tank, solar panels or air source heat pump. Legality of decision being referred back to the Panel. One objector has also submitted alternative photomontages to illustrate the impact of the property. The Parish of St. Ouen in a letter of 18 August considered that little has been done to revise the proposals to address the previous reasons for refusal. The Parish wrote again on 25 August and 7 September, and in the last letter noted that the Connétable would like to advise that, although he is aware that some of the neighbours of the application are still not content with what is proposed, the Parish will not be making any further submission. The National Trust originally commented in a letter dated 17 August noting that the building was much higher, allowing for its flat roof was much bulkier than the existing building and out of keeping with other buildings in the immediate vicinity. Although the Trust endorsed the attempts of the proposed design to blend into the background by the use of granite and wood, it felt that any advantage gained, was lost because of the increased size. In a subsequent letter of 8 October sent to and forwarded to the Department by, the architect, the Trust Council noted that the Development Applications Committee did express some concerns regarding the size of the development and the Council very much feels that it is now a matter for the Planning Panel to consider. In relation to the environmental benefits, the Trust would like to commend the architect’s efforts in this respect. The sourcing of sustainable materials and the use of renewable sources of energy coupled with increase levels of insulation are very much welcomed. We would also fully endorse your client’s suggestion of restricting the domestic curtilage to prevent incremental development at a later date. The applicant’s architect and advocate have responded to the representations received, most notably in the applicant’s advocate’s letter of 13 October 2010 and with regard to the issue of drainage. These responses are attached in full as background papers, but note various points including the following:- This house has been occupied by one family for 45 years and it is not considered unreasonable that the property requires reasonable refreshment. The house is the smallest of three in this group, and its proposed footprint at 254sq.m is still less than the 275sq.m of the property to the north and the 351sq.m of the property to the south. The Planning Applications Panel previously considered that the rear wing was too prominent, and hence the application was refused. This has been addressed in the revised scheme. No objection was received however to the architectural style of the alterations and extensions, no objection to the footprint, and it was considered unreasonable to refuse the application on the basis of overlooking prejudice. One of the objectors has sought to redesign the scheme, and sent the applicant details of other properties they may prefer. The existing property was not deliberately played down in this group of three houses, each of the three were designed and built by different parties. The applicant’s property already suffers overlooking from the adjacent property to the north, but will not lead to an unsatisfactory level of overlooking of that property. Contrary to the arguments made, the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework does not prevent extensions to existing residential properties. The proposal is not to construct a house comprising seven or eight bedrooms as alleged. The precise residential curtilage to the property is unclear, and probably all of the land in the applicant’s ownership, which extends onto the gorse land to the east, is legitimate residential curtilage. It is proposed however to only make a small incursion, to line up with the adjacent property to the north. This will still be a lesser incursion to the east than the existing property to the south. The proposal satisfies St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework Policy SO15, as the proposal is of significant architectural merit, (which the existing building is not), it is not a new house, but an improvement and extension, and it is in keeping with the character of the area and has no negative impact on the landscape. A Tight Tank is proposed to deal with any sewerage output from the new extension as Mains Drains are not a realistic alternative. Output from the existing building will be routed to the existing Septic Tank. There will not however, be 16 people on site, as alleged, and Island Plan policies do not preclude the use of tight tanks. Although there is no stated distance requirement in the Bye Laws, the Tight Tank will be 10m from the neighbours’ borehole and can be moved further. It exceeds the 7m distance required from another property. The existing septic tank however is within 35m from the adjacent property, less than the 50m required under the Bye Laws. It is not intended that the ground floor will become a separate annexe or that other development will follow as has been alleged. There is no need for a scaffold profile nor for a landscape/visual impact assessment. Policy SO16 is irrelevant as this is not a new dwelling. Policy C5 (Green Zone) allows for extensions to exist in residential properties. The Panel has recently granted Planning Permission for a 68% increase in floor area in the immediate locality at the property La Paonerie. The raising of the lawn will only be by a maximum of 1m All the letters of representation together with the responses from the applicant’s architect and advocate are attached as background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations As noted above, the application was submitted, assessed and a permit issued under the 2002 Island Plan. On the 2002 Plan the site lay within the Green Zone wherein Policy C5 of the Island Plan set a presumption against development. The policy did however specifically state that not all forms of development are prohibited, and listed domestic extensions as potentially acceptable development, but only where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the zone. In all cases, the appropriate test as to whether a development proposal would be permitted was its impact on the visually sensitive character of this zone, and whether it accords with the principles of sustainability which underwrite the plan. The site also lay within the area covered by the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework and Policies SO10 and SO15 were particularly relevant. The framework document aims to control development in this area in the interests of retaining its special character. Policy SO10 stated that house extensions may in principle be appropriate development provided they do not adversely affect the unique character of the bay. Policy SO15 related specifically to house extensions and states that they would only be permitted where they do not:- Detract from the character, appearance or amenity of the original building, its setting or neighbouring buildings; dominate the original building where it is of architectural, historic or vernacular merit; create a separate dwelling or an annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling; cause highway safety or parking problems. Reference has also been made to Policies SO12 and SO16. Policy SO12 (Control of Development) was a general policy which suggests that all applications for development should include information on the formal layout of the development site, including views into and out of and open spaces, details of the scale, height and massing of the development and existing buildings to which it relates, details of elevational designs and to the nature and quality of materials. These are included in this application. The policy also noted that applications for development which could have significant landscape or visual impact, or effect the setting or important views into or out of the special area, must be supported by detailed, landscape and visual impact assessment. This application is for the refurbishment, remodelling and extension of an existing residential property, many of which have been approved within the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework Area. It is considered that the information submitted to assess the application in regard of its impact on the character of the area, is adequate. The policy continued to note that where the demolition or partial demolition of existing buildings is proposed, this should not involve the demolition of structures which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance or historic interest of the bay. This is not considered to be the case here. Policy SO16 (Replacement Dwellings) related specifically to replacement dwellings. Although this building is proposed to be remodelled and extended it is not to be demolished and replaced. It is not considered therefore that the requirements of this policy are directly relevant. Its key aim however is to ensure that any development is appropriate to the character of the area, and this is covered by the other policies discussed above. The requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design) are also relevant, and any development must be sympathetic to its context, compatible with the design of the existing building, or achieve a high standard of design in its own right, and respect the amenities of adjacent properties, particularly by avoiding unacceptable levels of overlooking or overbearing impact. On the 2011 Island Plan Map the site is in the Coastal National Park. Policy NE6 sets the strongest presumption against development in order to protect the character of the Park. The Plan accepts however that there are existing buildings and uses within the Park and that there are opportunities to improve existing buildings and the Park. Specific potential exceptions are listed including house extensions. Exceptions will only be permitted where it is demonstrated that “extensions to existing residential buildings will not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area, and where their design is appropriate relative to existing buildings and their context”. Policy GD7 requires a high quality of design, appropriate scale, form and mass, suitable materials, colours and design, and respect for landscape character. Policy GD1 reiterates the requirement to avoid serious harm to the natural environment and that development must not have an ureasonable impact on the character of the coast or countryside (including the National Park), and does not cause serious harm to the amenities of neighbouring properties. Policy LWM2 focuses on foul sewerage and sets a clear presumption in favour of mains sewerage. In exceptional circumstances however alternatives, including existing septic tanks, new tight tanks and private treatment works, may be acceptable. Such developments include extensions and alterations to existing residential properties. Land Use Implications There is no change in land use other than the required reduction in the size of the domestic curtilage, to allow greater control over this part of the landscape in the long term. Size, Scale and Siting The existing building is two storeys at the front, but as the land rises steeply towards the rear (east) the rear of the property is only single storey. At the rear of the main two storey element of the house is an existing single storey garage building. The proposal includes the remodelling of the front of the building, removing the existing pitched roof and replacing it with a flat roof. The existing white render would be clad in timber. The height of this part of the building would therefore be lower than the existing building, and by the use of timber in place of white render, the first floor of the building would be less prominent in the landscape. In addition to this, an extension is proposed at the rear of the building at right angles to the front section. This is two storeys in height, and as the rear of the site is higher than the front, the upper floor will appear one floor higher than the existing building. To the side of this a single garage is also proposed. A mixture of cedar timber cladding and granite is used throughout with powder coated or anodised aluminium windows. As in the case of the previous, refused application, the proposals do involve an increase in the size and floor area of the proposed building, not at the front, but at the rear. The rear extension is also ultimately higher than the existing building – by 1.107m as shown. There is no statistical limit or allowance for increases in the size or height of residential properties. The impact of this on the landscape and adjacent properties is a matter of judgement. The previous application included a two storey wing running along the eastern side of the existing parking area. The combined mass and impact of the proposals was considered unacceptable by the Planning Applications Panel. This new application therefore does not include a two storey wing running along the eastern side of the existing parking area. Rather than an U-shaped layout, the habitable area of the proposed building, as extended, would now be an L-shape. This reduces the apparent scale of the building when viewed from the west. Although the rear perpendicular wing is higher than the existing building, as it is set back, and due to the use of natural materials, it is considered that it would not appear unacceptably intrusive. In addition to this extension a single storey garage wing is proposed. This will be largely hidden from longer views as it will sit behind the existing building. The acceptability of the flat roof design is again a subjective issue. The Department Architect has been consulted and considered that the style of the building was acceptable. It is a contemporary approach using natural materials. There is no set character to the buildings in the area, and it is not considered unreasonable to pursue a contemporary approach in this case. The question of whether this proposed domestic extension would (a) ‘unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality’ of the area (under policy C5 of the former 2002 Island Plan); or, (b) not ‘cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area’ … and is of a design ‘that is appropriate relative to the existing building and its context’ (under policy NE6 of the current 2011 Island Plan); or, (c) not adversely affect the unique landscape character of St. Ouen’s Bay (under the St. Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework) involves the exercise of a planning judgement. The Department’s conclusion is that in its amended form, the proposed development by its incorporation of a flat roof, setbacks, reduced east wing, and in particular the use of natural materials, will achieve a development which is not out of place in the area, and will to a large extent merge into the natural backdrop of the site when viewed from the west. It is not considered that it will have a detrimental impact upon the landscape or the character of the area. Design and Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above. Impact on Neighbours As in the previous application, concerns have been raised with regard to potential overlooking of adjacent properties. The occupier of the neighbouring property to the south has raised no objection to overlooking provided the existing boundary hedge is retained. The occupier of the property to the north is concerned however that the proposal will have an overbearing impact upon their property, and also result in overlooking, something which was allegedly specifically designed out when the houses were constructed. The Planning Applications Panel did not however refuse the previous application on the basis of potential overlooking. In addition, the applicant has attempted to address any overlooking issues towards the north by including a balcony screen to the top floor balcony, and minimising the number of first floor north facing windows. There are 4 at the first floor, 3 to a corridor, 1 to a bedroom. That to the bedroom is angled to face towards the west rather than the north. The others the Department recommends should be obscurely glazed. Given this, the distance of these windows from the adjacent property, and that that property already has windows looking towards the application site, it is not considered that the application could be refused on the grounds of unreasonable levels of overlooking. Access, Car Parking and Highway Considerations No changes to the proposed access are envisaged, and it is not considered that the increase in size of the building would generate significant amounts of traffic. More than adequate car parking is available within the application site. Foul Sewage Disposal The Department seeks to avoid any increase in development which will generate additional drainage, where this relies on the use of a septic tank and soakaway. In the absence of mains drains, and with a proposed increase in the number of bedrooms, it has been normal practice to require a tight tank if the application was considered acceptable in all other respects. In this case 3 bedrooms are shown as existing. The proposed drawings show these used as an office, gym and pool lounge, and 4 rooms are labelled as bedrooms. A Condition was therefore recommended, should Permission be granted, that a tight tank be required. This will ensure that any risk of ground water pollution is minimised The disposal of sewerage to a tight tank was not contrary to Policy NR2 of the 2002 Island Plan. Policy LWM2 of the 2011 Plan allows for development, including house alterations and extensions, on a tight tank in exceptional circumstances where other alternatives are not realistically achievable. In this case mains drains are not locally available. The site currently disposes of sewerage to a septic tank and soakaway. The applicant is proposing to split output between that existing septic tank and soakaway and the proposed tight tank. This is likely to reduce the load to the septic tank and soakaway and hence potential pollution therefrom. It also means that not all of the site's waste will go to the new tight tank and so the tight tank will not need emptying as often as it would if the whole house was dependent upon it. The latest drawings show a proposed position for the Tight Tank. As required under the Jersey Building Bye Laws, this is down slope from the property and in excess of 7m from any habitable parts of a building and within 30m of a vehicle access. Although there are no requirements under the Bye-Laws for tight tanks to be located away from boreholes, the applicant’s statement in support of the proposed drainage confirms that the tight tank can be sited so that it is at least 10 metres away from the nearest neighbour’s borehole. Reference has been made to various areas of guidance. The Director of Building Control has been consulted on the application and is content that the proposals satisfy the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. The approved technical guidance which has been published in support of the Building Bye-Law requirements does not set a specific distance required between tight tanks and boreholes but states that cesspools must be constructed and sited so as not to be prejudicial to health, or a nuisance or adversely affect water sources. In terms of not affecting water sources, this is achieved by the very design of a tight tank system which must be water tight. There is also a requirement for an alarm to be fitted so as to ensure that tanks are emptied before they become full. It has been alleged that 10 or up to 16 people would occupy the property. This is based on an assumption that some of the rooms facing the garden will be used as bedrooms although they are not shown to be used as such, and that these rooms and the labelled bedrooms would each be occupied by 2 people. The Minister should make a reasonable assessment of the likely occupancy of this property which would not be unique in the number and nature of rooms which it accommodates. The department’s view is that it is not realistic or reasonable to assume that it will be occupied by this number of people. Landscaping Issues The area of the site where the development is proposed does not enjoy any particular landscaping features. A condition is recommended to reduce the size of the rear domestic curtilage, which would give greater control over this area in the long term. The proposed extension’s small incursion into the existing slope is not considered to have any significant impact. Other Material Considerations Reference has been made in representations to potential noise during construction. It is not considered that disturbance during this type of relatively modest construction is a reasonable grounds for refusing Planning Permission. It has also been suggested that a scaffold profile should be erected and that a landscape/visual impact assessment should be submitted. The information submitted is considered adequate for the scale of proposals. It is extremely rare for the Department or the Planning Applications Panel to require the construction of a scaffold profile. The Panel has however twice visited the site and seen measuring poles indication the height and position of the proposed 2 storey extension. Reference has also been made to two recent third party appeal decisions. In the case of Steenson, the Court found that the development would, contrary to the view of the Department, have a detrimental impact upon the character of the Green Zone and the amenities of neighbouring properties, and suggested that the presumption against development had not been adequately taken into account in the Department’s report. The report for this application however clearly sets out the presumption against development in the former Green Zone and the Coastal National Park, but also the allowances of the relevant policies for some residential extensions in this area as a legitimate part of those policies. The Department does not consider in this case that the impact on the character of the area is unacceptable. It is a matter of judgement whether the scale and nature of the extensions is appropriate. The Department understands the differing view of those who have made representations, and recommended that the Panel undertake a site visit to fully assess the impact of the development, as was suggested in the case of Dunn -v- Planning and Environment. Reference has also been made to the case at St. Ouen’s Manor where it was considered that the Department had tried to mediate between an applicant and objector. In the case of this report for Le Vouest therefore the report simply seeks to set out what the Department believes are the key relevant issues and to make a recommendation including relevant conditions, on the basis of the merits of the scheme and those relevant issues. The application has been amended to address specific criticisms raised by objectors with regard to the Powerpoint presentation and the location of the tight tank.

Officer Recommendation	Approve

Conditions/ Reasons	1. Before development commences, a plan must be submitted to the Minister, and agreed, to confirm the extent of the authorised curtilage. It is expected that this would project no further east than the rear elevation of the proposed rear wing of the extension hereby permitted. 2. All materials including details of all jointing and fixings must be agreed with the Department Architect. 3. The property must be connected to a tight tank prior to the occupation of any of the additional accommodation hereby approved in accordance with details to be agreed with the Minister. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011,or any amendment to or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure, tank, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. 5. The species to be used on the sedum roof must be agreed with the Minister prior to its construction. 6. Prior to the commencement of development a Site Plan including existing and proposed levels and 2 perpendicular cross scetions shall be submitted to, and agreed by the Minister, to show the extent and contours of the raising of the front garden levels, and the materials to be used. 7. The first floor north facing corridor windows in the extension hereby approved shall at all times be glazed in obscure glass. Reasons 1. As part of the development The Minister wishes to ensure that this area does not become domesticated and wishes to agree a limited curtilage which will give greater control over any future development on the land to the east of the dwelling. 2. To ensure a satisfactory quality of construction. 3. To reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. 4. This is a sensitive site and the Minister wishes to retain control over future development on the site. 5. To ensure the species are appropriate to the area. 6. The area concerned and the increase in level is modest but the Minister wishes to agree specific details in the interests of the appearance of the site. 7. To avoid any unacceptable overlooking of the adjoining property. Proposed Reason For Approval in the event that the application is approved: Planning Permission has been granted subject to Conditions following careful consideration of the relevant Planning Policies and all consultations and representations recieved, the information submitted, the merits of the scheme. It is recognised that the site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, wherein Policy C5 sets a general presumption against development. The site also lay within the area covered by the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework which, inter alia, seeks to control development in the interests of maintaining the special character of the area. Policy C5 (Green Zone) of the Island Plan and Policies SO10 and SO15 of the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework did not however prohibit extensions to dwellings, and such proposals may be permitted where the proposal would not detract from or unreasonably harm the sensitive character and scenic quality of this area and provided the impact upon neighbouring properties is not unacceptable, and that no highways problem or separate unit is created. Many extensions to houses have been approved in this area where it has been considered that these criteria have been met, and this application has been assessed in the same manner. The requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) G3 (Quality of Design) and NR2 (Foul Sewerage Facilities) have also been considered in particular in respect of the impact of the development on adjoining properties, the area and foul drainage. The 2011 Island Plan has subsequently been adopted and the site now lies within the Coastal National Park. In this area there is the strongest presumption against development, (Policy NE6). It is acknowledged however that there are existing buildings and uses in the Park. House Extensions are specifically noted as a type of development which may be acceptable as an excepetion to the general presumption against development provided they do not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area and where their design is appropriate relative to existing buildings and their context. It is considered that the extension of the dwelling as proposed will not have any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the immediate area or the Coastal National Park as a whole taking into account its particular site context and setting against the hillside, the setback and the modest increase in height above the existing ridge. The use of materials proposed for the extension and for the remodelling of the front part of the house are considered to improve the appearance of the existing building, helping it to blend into its setting, and the scheme is supported by the Department Architect. The scale of the rear wing of the previous refused scheme has been significantly and satisfactorily reduced. A privacy screen has been included to the top floor balcony, the window of the rear bedroom has been angled to avoid overlooking, and a Condition is imposed requiring the first floor north facing windows in the extension to be obscurely glazed. The small incursion into the slope at the rear of the property is not considered detrimental to the character of the area, and with the applicant's agreement a Condition is imposed to agree the extent of the residential curtilage which the Minister expects will not extend further east than that of the adjoining properties. This will prevent future domestication of this area. Notwithstanding the objections raised, the application is not for the creation of a separate unit or an annexe. As the application is otherwise considered acceptable, but will increase the number of bedrooms and hence the potential occupancy of the building, a tight tank is required in the absence of mains drains. Inthis case this is considered a reasonable and realistic solution. This meets the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. It is therefore considered that the development satisfies the requirements of Island Plan 2011 policies GD1, GD7, NE6 and LWM2.

Background Papers	Departmental reports of 16 May 2011 and 26 October 2010 including attachments. Additional letters of representation. Planning Applications Panel Minutes 11 November 2010 and 26 May 2011. Additional Architects responses 2011.

Endorsed by:

Date: