Field No. 142, La Rue Horman, Grouville: Planning Application (P/2013/1328): Determination of Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 17 February 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2014-0010			Application Number: P/2013/1328 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Field No. 142, La Rue Horman, Grouville		Date of Decision Summary:		10/02/2014
Decision Summary Author:	Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		Planner
Written Report Title :	Officer Report – P/2013/1328		Date of Written Report:
Written Report Author:	Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Field No. 142, La Rue Horman, Grouville, Jersey Application Description: Construct 2 No. two bedroom and 2 No. one bedroom dwellings with associated car parking.
Decision(s): The Minister has decided to REFUSE permission to develop the site.
Reason(s) for Decision: Having regard for all of the relevant considerations (including the applicant’s submissions, the comments of neighbouring residents and the Department report), and having undertaken a site visit, the Minister has resolved to REFUSE the planning application for the following reasons; 1. It is acknowledged that the site is located within the Built Up Area wherein the development of new houses will normally be permitted. However, in this instance, by virtue of its design, size, scale and siting, the application would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the general residential amenity of surrounding properties as well as being detrimental to the character of the area. Therefore, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies GD 1, GD 3, GD 7, SP 7 and H 6 of the 2011 Jersey Island Plan. 2. The development fails to provide sufficient on-site parking for occupants, which would result in additional pressure on parking within the local vicinity, which is already understood to be oversubscribed. As such, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the 2011 Jersey Island Plan.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Field No. 142, La Rue Horman, Grouville: Planning Application (P/2013/1328): Determination of Minister

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Department of the Environment

Report for Planning Applications Panel

Site Visit

Application Number

P/2013/1328

Site Address	Field No. 142, La Rue Horman, Grouville

Applicant	Mr W Carroll Antler Homes

Description	Construct 2 No. two bedroom and 2 No. one bedroom dwellings with associated car parking.

Type	Major Application

Date Validated	25/09/2013

Zones & Constraints	Built-Up Area Eastern Cycle Route Corridor Green Backdrop Zone

Summary

Field 142 is an undeveloped site, measuring approximately 760 m², located on the edge of Gorey Village.

The site is within the Built Up Area and therefore in a location where the Island Plan seeks to focus and encourage the development of new dwellings.

The application is for the development of two 2-bedroom houses, and two 1-bedroom houses, along with associated car parking and a new vehicle entrance to the site.

The Panel will recall that it refused a previous application for similar development of the site on the grounds of overdevelopment (including impact on neighbours) and a lack of visitor parking.

The scheme has now been altered, including a reduction in the size of two of the four units (from 2-bedroom to 1-bedroom) and repositioning the building footprint further away from the neighbouring property to the south-east, thereby improving the relationship between the sites.

The scale and siting of the development has now improved but this has resulted in a further reduction in the number of parking spaces from eight to six. However, the parking requirement has also been reduced by two spaces owing to the fact that two of the units have been reduced in size, so overall the shortfall is the same as before.

The Panel will be aware that one of the key policy aims of the 2011 Island Plan is a reduction in the dependence on private car usage and, to this end, some relaxation of parking standards will be appropriate in certain circumstances.

On this occasion, we believe that a sensible balance has been struck between, on the one hand, ensuring that the site is developed to its ‘highest reasonable density’ (in line with Policy GD 3), whilst at the same time providing a reasonable level of on-site parking for residents and visitors.

In considering the application, the Panel should also bear in mind that the applicants have agreed to make a contribution towards the development of the Eastern Cycle Route network, and they have also agreed to provide a new public footpath along the roadside boundary of the site to improve pedestrian safety in the area.

It should be noted that the highway authority, TTS Highways, are satisfied with the development.

The proposed scheme is fairly conventional in appearance, being a series of rendered dwellings with timber windows and slate roofs The scheme would be pleasant, albeit unexceptional, in appearance.

As with the original scheme, a number of letters of objection have been received from nearby neighbours. The Department is mindful of these continued concerns; however, on balance, we recommend that the current application be approved.

Department Recommendation

APPROVE

Site Description & Existing Use

Field 142 is an undeveloped site within the Built Up Area on the edge of Gorey Village; it forms the corner site at the junction of Le Chemin des Maltieres and La Rue Horman. The total site area measures approximately 760 m2 and comprises rough grass. The site slopes from south-east to north-west with a difference in height of approximately 3m over a 30m distance. There are neighbouring properties in various styles within the immediate vicinity, including a detached bungalow to the immediate south-west and detached garages and gardens to the immediate south-east.

Proposed Development

The application is for the construction of 4 dwellings on the undeveloped site, together with associated parking area and the establishment of a new pedestrian footpath.

Relevant Planning History

In the 1990s, there were two unsuccessful applications for the redevelopment of the site.

11683/I/0/0 - Construct 5 no. three bedroom dwellings on Field 141 and 1 four bedroom dwelling on Field 142

The system records that this application was suspended in 1991 – no decision is recorded.

11683/J/0/0 – Construction of two storey dwelling with integral one bedroom flat and double garage, and new access.

Refused 13/09/1994

Earlier this year, the Panel considered a similar application for four new dwellings on the site. This is of most relevance to the current application.

P/2013/0294 – Construct 4 no. two bedroom properties with associated car parking and new vehicular access.

Initially refused 04/06/13, then RFR decision maintained by the Panel on 22/08/13.

The reasons stated for refusing the application were as follows;

It is acknowledged that the site is located within the Built Up Area wherein the development of new houses will normally be permitted; it is also recognised that there is a demand for housing units of the kind proposed. However, in this instance, by virtue of its design, size, scale and siting, the application would result in a cramped overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the general residential amenity of surrounding properties as well as being detrimental to the character of the area. Therefore, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies GD 1, GD 3, GD 7, SP 7 and H 6 of the 2011 Jersey Island Plan.

The development fails to provide any on-site visitor parking, which would result in additional pressure on parking within the local vicinity, which is already understood to be oversubscribed. As such, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the 2011 Jersey Island Plan.

The changes which have been made to the current application, following on from this previous refusal, are set out in the sections below.

It is also worth noting that the adjacent property, Villa Constance, has recently (December 2012) been granted consent for various alterations and extensions.

Consultations

The Highways section of TTS, in its consultation response dated 17/10/13, notes that its previously-stated requirements for visibility splays and a footpath (under previous application P/2013/0294) have now been met. Accordingly, it now supports the application.

The Drainage section of TTS, in its consultation response dated 15/10/13, states that there is a public foul sewer in La Rue Horman which has the capacity for the proposal. Surface water is to be directed to on-site soakaways.

The Health Protection Team of H&SS, in its consultation response dated 08/10/13, makes reference to its guidelines in respect of noise control on construction sites. It recommends that noisy work is restricted to certain hours.

The Natural Environment Section of DoE, in its consultation response dated 15/10/13, makes recommendations with regard to new planting within the hedgerows.

All consultations are attached with the background papers

Representations

The Department has received 4 letters of objection. Comments have been made in respect of the following issues;

The application fails to address the reasons for refusal given as part of the previous application;
Insufficient parking has been provided on the site (even fewer spaces than previously proposed), in an area where there is no spare capacity for on-street parking;
Adequate visibility can not be achieved when exiting the site, particularly if the visitor spaces are occupied;
The road junction is dangerous – this application will make matters worse;
Lack of a proposed footpath on Chemin des Maltieres;
Loss of light to neighbouring properties at Le Grand Chene;
The application is an overdevelopment of the site which is not in keeping with the area;
The scale of the buildings is excessive;
Loss of privacy / overlooking of the property to the immediate south-east;

The applicants have responded to each of the letters of objection received, commenting on the changes to the scheme following on from the previous refusal as well as the level of parking provision. They note that the scheme has been drawn up following discussions with TTS Highways. Finally, they have provided a sun-path analysis drawing which demonstrates, in their view, that the development will not lead to an unreasonable loss of light for neighbouring dwellings.

All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

Planning Assessment

a) Policy Considerations

SP 2 Efficient use of Resources

This policy covers a number of issues. In particular, it recognises that Jersey is a small island with limited resources, which therefore needs to make the most effective and efficient use of land and buildings possible. There is a preference to re-use those sites which have previously been developed instead of undeveloped greenfield sites and there is a general requirement to direct new development towards existing Built Up Areas.

In line with the sustainability theme which runs through the plan, the policy requires a more sustainable approach to the development and redevelopment of land with the delivery of higher densities where possible.

GD 1 General Development Considerations

Policy GD1 outlines the general considerations against which all planning applications will be tested. Broadly speaking, the policy highlights the need for the following; ensuring the sustainability of all new development proposals; assessing their impact on the surrounding environment and neighbouring land users; understanding the travel and transport implications of new developments, and; ensuring consideration is given to the design and architecture of all new developments.

GD 3 Density of Development

Policy GD3 states that, in order to contribute towards a more sustainable approach to the development and redevelopment of land (a Strategic Policy of the Plan), the Minister will require that the highest reasonable density is achieved for all developments, commensurate with good design, adequate amenity space and parking and without unreasonable impact on adjoining properties.

GD 7 Design Quality

The policy requires a high quality of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and the built context, to be sought in all developments.

Scale, form, massing & siting, the relationship to existing buildings, settlement form & character, topography, design details, colours & finishes and landscaping are all critical factors to consider.

SP 7 Better by Design

This policy states that all development must be of high design quality that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area of Jersey in which it is located.

The various components of development, including: layout and form; elevational treatment and appearance; density and mix; scale; height and massing; external elements, and landscaping; and architectural detail and materials will be assessed to ensure that the development proposed makes a positive contribution to the locality.

The use of either traditional or more innovative forms of modern architecture of the highest quality will be encouraged in locations where the setting and context are appropriate, and where areas of particular quality or local character will not be damaged but may be enhanced.

H 6 Housing Development Within the Built-Up Area

The policy states that proposals for new dwellings will be permitted within the boundary of the Built-up Area provided that the proposal is in accordance with the required standards for housing as established and adopted by the Minister.

TT 3 Cycle Routes

The site is located within the ‘Eastern Cycle Route Corridor’.

Within this zone, applications for large new developments, including new housing schemes, will be assessed to determine their potential to contribute towards the further development or enhancement of the Eastern Cycle Route network.

In this instance, the developers have agreed to make a contribution of £4,000 (£1,000 per unit) towards the development of the network. This reflects the level of contribution made by developers on other schemes.

…

To summarise the policy context for the application, this is a Built Up Area site wherein there is a presumption in favour of the development of new dwellings, and where the Island Plan seeks to focus new development.

As such, the broad principle of new housing development is acceptable, albeit the Minister is required to ensure that the site is developed to its ‘highest reasonable density, commensurate with good design, adequate amenity space and parking and without unreasonable impact on adjoining properties’.

b) Size, scale, form & siting

The proposal is for a linear run of 4 dwellings, centrally located within the site on a south-west to north-east axis. This arrangement enables parking to the north (with direct access onto Le Chemin des Maltieres) and gardens to the south.

The previous scheme was for 4 no. 2-bedroom dwellings, whereas this application is for 2 no. 2-bedroom dwellings, and 2 no. 1-bedroom dwellings. The smaller units also contain an additional room designated as a study; it is acknowledged that these could serve as a small single-occupancy bedrooms. This has implications for the level of car parking required (discussed below).

As a general rule of thumb, where an elevation provides opportunities for over-looking (i.e. where it includes a number of upper-storey windows), a distance of at least 10 metres from the boundary is desirable. With the previous scheme, the rear building line of the development achieved just 9m. With the current scheme, the building has been re-positioned further north in order to achieve 10m. This has been possible to achieve by reducing the number of parking spaces provided.

Owing to the gradient of the site, the rear of the units is slightly elevated above the garden level with steps down from a small patio onto the lawn. This raises the height of the development at the rear in relation to the neighbouring boundary.

Compared to the previous scheme, the gardens for all for units are now slightly larger, comfortably exceeding the minimum 50 m² size required for new dwellings. That said, a rough comparison with the density of other nearby developments reveals that, on the whole, the current scheme provides less room per plot when compared with neighbouring sites.

The previous scheme was not supported by the Department on the grounds of overdevelopment and impact on neighbouring amenity. However, this was a balanced view and it was recognised that the site was able to provide much-needed Category B housing. The current scheme has reduced the quantum of development proposed through a reduction in the scale of two of the four units; in addition, the pressure on the rear site boundary has been slightly reduced. There is an issue over the level of parking provision (dealt with below), but with regard to the scale and position of the new units, the Department is now comfortable with the scheme.

It is worth noting that prior to the submission of the previous application, the Department offered cautious support at the pre-application stage. At the time, the applicants were proposing 4 no. 1-bedroom dwellings.

In the event, the application which was made was for 4 no. 2-bedroom dwellings which we considered to be an overdevelopment.

The current application lies halfway between these two.

c) Architectural design and use of materials

The design statement includes an assessment of existing houses within the vicinity, concluding that the area is not typified by any particular architecture or style.

The proposed scheme is fairly conventional in appearance, being a series of rendered dwellings with timber windows, slate roofs and a canopy running the length of the building frontage. The scheme would be pleasant, if unexceptional, in appearance.

d) Impact in the landscape / street

It is considered that the proposed building would sit comfortably within the surrounding Built-Up context of the site.

e) Impact on neighbours

Any development on the site will impact upon neighbouring properties to an extent given that the site is currently undeveloped – that is to be expected. And because the site is zoned as Built Up Area, the neighbours must expect that some development will occur. The comments received from immediate neighbours are noted.

Following the previous application, the building has now been re-positioned such that it now better aligns with the established building line of the neighbouring property to the south-west, and where its impact upon the neighbour to the south-east is reduced.

The scale of the building is broadly comparable with other buildings in the vicinity.

Overall, the Department concludes that the impact of the development upon its neighbours would no longer be so unreasonable as to merit refusal of the scheme.

f) Access, car parking & highway considerations

This goes to the heart of many nearby residents’ main objections to the application. The primary concern is that insufficient parking has been provided on the site which will result in overspill onto surrounding roads, where parking is already over-subscribed. Also, concerns have been raised in respect of the siting of the new vehicle entrance into the site, and the adverse effect on highway safety.

The Panel will recall that one of the reasons that the previous application was refused was to do with a lack of visitor parking.

With this current application, the scheme will provide each of the new dwellings with a single parking space, as well as two parking spaces for visitors – a total of six spaces.

Overall, this is two spaces fewer than with the previous application; however, the parking requirement has also been reduced by two spaces owing to the reduction in size of two of the units, so overall the shortfall is the same.

The Department’s parking standards are taken from Planning Policy Notes No. 3 Parking Guidelines, a document which originally dates from 1988.

These guidelines would ordinarily be interpreted to mean that two parking spaces should be provided for a 2-bedroom dwelling, and one space for a 1-bedroom dwelling. Two visitor spaces for four units is correct (one space per three units, or part thereof).

However, this is now a rather dated document and more recently, the policies of the 2011 Island Plan now seek to encourage a much reduced reliance of the use of private cars and the provision of fewer parking spaces as part of new developments.

For instance, at paragraph 8.137, the Island Plan states that

“…the provision of significant amounts of parking space in association with new development is an inefficient use of valuable land and a constraint to achieving good urban design.

8.138 It is, however, recognised that this is a difficult matter to tackle in Jersey where, given high levels of car ownership, many people consider it almost a requirement or even a right to park close to or at their home. There is also evidence, from elsewhere, that development which fails to cater adequately for the car can lead to increasing pressure on nearby kerbside space and for other road users to be excluded from using it. The Minister, thus, acknowledges that for some sections of the Island community the private vehicle remains the only practical transport option…

8.139 The Minister for Planning and Environment will, therefore, develop and adopt supplementary planning guidance which establishes a range of minimum and maximum levels of parking for broad classes of development, including residential and commercial land uses and buildings, as well as for urban and rural parts of the Island. Maximum standards will be designed to be used as part of a package of measures to promote sustainable transport choices, reduce the land-take of development, enable schemes to fit into central urban sites, promote linked-trips and access to development for those without use of a car and to tackle congestion whilst minimum standards will ensure that developers are required to provide a certain level of parking provision where it is appropriate to do so.”

This guidance is still in the process of being developed and so for the time being PPN3 remains in effect. PPN3 does however state that “the standards (which it contains) are set down for guidance only and it is not the intention to produce a set of inflexible rules, which are unnecessarily restrictive”

The Minister has made it clear that he is keen to promote a reduction in private car usage, and that parking should not dominate development sites, especially those where the availability of land is limited.

Having regard to the broad aims of the 2011 Island Plan, a key policy objective of which is the reduction in the dependence on private car usage, the Department does accept that some relaxation of the parking standards may be appropriate in certain circumstances.

In considering the level of parking provision, the Panel should also bear in mind that the applicants have agreed to make a £4,000 contribution (£1,000 per unit) towards the development / enhancement of the Eastern Cycle Route network. They have also agreed to cede a strip of land along the roadside boundary of La Rue Horman for the provision of a public footpath, thereby improving pedestrian safety and access in the area. In the Department’s view, these factors offset the parking shortfall to a certain extent.

The applicants also point out that the site is fairly close to a large public car park (600m away) and a bus stop (300m away).

The proposed new site access has also led to highway safety concerns being raised by nearby residents – the concern is that this new access is in close proximity to a hazardous junction.

In response, the Department would stress that the visibility splays from the new vehicle entrance are in accordance with the requirements of the highway authority, TTS Highways who are supportive of the application.

g) Foul sewage & surface water disposal

Foul sewerage will be directed to mains drains where there is capacity. Surface water drainage will be directed to on-site soakaways.

h) Landscaping

Existing boundary planting is to be retained (and augmented), including the mature beech tree within the north-west corner of the site. Normal domestic landscaping is anticipated within the garden areas.

A landscaping scheme will be required by condition to provide these details.

i) Archaeology

n/a

j) Waste management

n/a

k) Planning Obligations & Percent for Art

A POA will be required to secure the delivery of the contribution towards the Eastern Cycle Route.

l) Contaminated Land

n/a

m) Sustainability

The site is located within the Built-Up Area, forming part of an established settlement. This is a location where the Island Plan seeks to focus and encourage the development of new dwellings.

n) Other matters

None

Conclusion

In summary, the Department acknowledges the continued concerns of some nearby residents, and we accept that – taking a strict interpretation of the adopted parking standards – there is still a shortfall in parking (the principal objection raised).

However, this site is ideally located for new residential development and there is a need to make best use of Built Up Area sites, optimising their potential.

The relationship with neighbouring properties has been improved and, on balance, the Department believes that it can now support the current application.

Department Recommendation	It is recommended that the Planning Applications Panel endorse the APPROVAL of the application, subject to the applicant’s entering into a suitable planning obligation agreement, pursuant to Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law, 2002 (as amended), in order to guarantee the provision of the following; A financial contribution of £4,000 towards the development / enhancement of the Eastern Cycle Route; A mechanism and timetable to ensure the delivery of the pavement and altered kerbs, at the applicant’s cost, as agreed with TTS Highways; The ceding of the pavement to the public. It is recommended that the Director (Development Control) be authorised to GRANT planning permission under powers delegated to him subject to conditions and reasons set out below and also subject to the completion of the planning obligation agreement referred to above. Alternatively, in the event that a suitable planning obligation is not agreed within six months of his being authorised in accordance with this recommendation, the Director (Development Control) be authorised to REFUSE the grant of planning permission.

Conditions & Reasons	The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans and documents permitted under this permit. No variations shall be made without the prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. REASON: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, under the provisions of Policy GD 1 of the 2011 Island Plan. Notwithstanding condition no. 1 above, or any indication on any of the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details (including physical samples or high quality photographic evidence where appropriate) of all external materials to be used to construct the development, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment or an authorised officer. REASON: The execution of this development is considered to be critical to its success, and the Minister wishes to be assured as to the quality of these details, under the provisions of Policies GD 1 and GD 7 of the 2011 Island Plan. Notwithstanding the details indicated within the approved plans, the development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until there has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Minister for Planning and Environment, a scheme of landscaping which shall provide details of the following; a) all existing trees, hedgerows and other plants, walls, fences and other features which it is proposed to retain on the site and on adjoining land within the same ownership; b) the position of all new trees and/or shrubs, this must include the species of plant(s)/tree(s) to be planted, their size, number and spacing and the means to be used to support and protect them; c) other landscape treatments to be carried out or features to be created, for example, any excavation works, surfacing treatments, or means of enclosure; d) the measures to be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs; and, e) the arrangements to be made for the maintenance of the landscaped areas. All planting and other operations comprised in the approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out and completed in the first planting season following the completion of the development. REASON: To ensure that before development proceeds provision is made for a landscaping regime that will enhance the appearance of the development and help to assimilate it into the landscape, in accordance with Policies GD 1 and NE 4 of the 2011 Island Plan. Prior to the first use / occupation of the development hereby approved, visibility lines must be provided in accordance with the approved drawings. Everything within the visibility sight lines, including gates, walls, railings and plant growth is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. REASON: In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with Policy GD 1 of the 2011 Island Plan.
Recommended Reason for Approval	Planning Permission has been granted having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other material considerations, including the consultations and representations received. The approved scheme is for the development of four new dwellings, together with associated car parking and a new vehicle entrance, on Field 142 in Grouville. The site is located within the Built Up Area, on the edge of Gorey Village, in a location where the Island Plan seeks to focus and encourage the development of new dwellings. A previous scheme for a similar development was recently refused on the grounds of overdevelopment (including impact on neighbours) and a lack of visitor parking. Since then, the scheme has been altered, including a reduction in the size of two of the four units, and repositioning the building footprint further away from the neighbouring property to the south-east, thereby improving the relationship between these sites. Although the scale and siting of the development has now improved, this has resulted in a further reduction in the number of parking spaces from eight to six. However, the parking requirement has also been reduced by two spaces owing to the fact that two of the units have been reduced in size, so overall the shortfall (based on a strict interpretation of the Minister for Planning and Environment’s parking standards) is the same as before. The Planning Applications Panel is aware of this fact. However, it is also mindful of the fact that one of the key policy objectives of the 2011 Island Plan is a reduction in the dependence on private car usage and, to this end, some relaxation of parking standards will be appropriate in certain circumstances. On this occasion, the Panel accepts that a sensible balance has been struck between, on the one hand, ensuring that the site is developed to its ‘highest reasonable density’ (in line with Policy GD 3), whilst at the same time providing a reasonable level of on-site parking for residents and visitors. In considering the application, the Panel has also taken into account the fact that the applicants have agreed to make a contribution towards the development of the Eastern Cycle Route network (in line with Island Plan Policy TT 3), as well as agreeing to provide a new public footpath along the roadside boundary of the site to improve pedestrian safety in the area (in line with Island Plan Policy TT 2). In all other respects, the application complies with the Minister’s residential standards. The overall design and appearance of the approved scheme is considered to be in keeping with the character of the area and is therefore acceptable. The Panel is mindful at the continued concerns of a number of nearby residents and has taken the comments made into account. However, on balance, the Panel considers the application to be acceptable.
Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Applicant’s Covering Letter + Design Statement 4 consultation responses 4 letters of objection 4 further letters from the applicant

Endorsed by:

Date: