Oratava, 28 Upper Midvale Road, St. Helier

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (19.01.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Oratava, 28 Upper Midvale Road, St. Helier.

Subject:	Oratava, 28 Upper Midvale Road, St. Helier Convert existing property into 2 No. 2 bedroom dwellings. Construct new 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0125	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		PP/2006/0250
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Uphold the refusal of the planning application
Reason(s) for decision: The proposed development provided unsatisfactory amenity space and manouvering space for vehicles, failed to demonstrate an adequate planting scheme or the means by which waste material would be dealt with contrary to the policies of the Island Plan H8, G2, BE10 and WM2 and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify agent of the decision.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 19/01/07

Oratava, 28 Upper Midvale Road, St. Helier - maintain refusal

Application Number: PP/2006/0250

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Oratava, 28, Upper Midvale Road, St. Helier.

Requested by	Ms. V LMoore	Agent	Grainger PDC Ltd

Description	Convert existing property into 2 No. 2 bedroom dwellings. Construct new 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning Principle

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal fails to provide adequate standards of private external amenity space contrary to the minimum standards set out in Planning Policy Note No.6 ‘A Minimum Specification for New Housing Developments, February 1994’ contrary to Policy H8 (viii) and G2 (v) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed development does not provide enough space to enable a vehicle to turn on the site and enter the highway in a forward direction and would therefore be prejudicial to highway safety and the amenity of the proposed and neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy H8 (ii) and (v), G2 (ii) and (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 3. The application fails to demonstrate the adequate retention of existing vegetation or present satisfactory proposals for new planting, contrary to Policy BE10 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 4. The application fails to demonstrate the means by which the waste material arising from the development will be re-used, recycled or disposed of either within or off the site in accordance with Policy WM2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	09/08/2006

Zones	Built Up Area Green Backdrop Zone

Policies	G2 - General Development Considerations H8 – Housing Development within the Built-Up Area Proposals for new dwellings, extensions or alterations to existing dwellings or changes of use to residential, will normally be permitted within the boundary of the built-up area as defined on the Island Proposals Map, provided that the proposal: (i) is in accordance with the required standards for housing as set by the Planning and Environment Committee; (ii) will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area; (iii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of noise, visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; (v) will not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, safety or parking; (vi) makes use of existing buildings where possible; (vii) is appropriate in scale, form, massing, density and design to the site and its context; (viii) incorporates where appropriate satisfactory provision of amenity and public open space, to include landscaping and children’s play space; Proposals which do not satisfy these criteria will not normally be permitted. BE10 - Green Backdrop Zone The Green Backdrop Zone is designated on the Island and Town Proposals Maps. Within this zone, development will only be permitted where: (i) the natural landscape remains the dominant element in the scene; (ii) it pays particular regard to the retention of existing vegetation; (iii) it presents satisfactory proposals for new planting; and

Recommendation

The Department acknowledges that the Island Plan seeks to integrate new development within the Built-Up Area and that already developed land should be re-used. However, new development should at least meet the minimum standards as set out in PPN No.6 and the requirements of Policy H8. The proposed scheme is cramped and does not meet the requirements and therefore is arguably not a sustainable form of development.

The adjacent sites are not precedents for the overdevelopment of Oratavia.

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	Policy Considerations H8 & G2 The site’s location within the Built-Up Area means that there is no presumption against development provided the development meets the requirements of the Island Plan, specifically, the provision of adequate parking, amenity space and would not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed development will result in the site being used more intensively for residential purposes but given the site’s location within the Built-Up Area, this is acceptable in principle. The existing dwelling is sub-divided into 2 No. 2 bed units and an “extension” will provide an additional 2 -bed unit. The increase in the size of the building does not result in an unreasonable overbearing relationship because the extension faces the blank gable end of the adjacent dwelling (to the south) and replaces a two-storey garage and storage building. The windows to the new unit face the blank gable. Also, a degree of overlooking already exists between all the properties in the area and from Oratava (existing balcony and windows). BE10 Development only permitted if natural landscape is dominant, particular regard is paid to existing vegetation and satisfactory new planting is proposed. The requirements of Policy BE10 are not met by this scheme. Whilst the existing vegetation makes only a limited contribution to the GBZ in terms of the landscape, it does contribute to the visual amenity of the immediate area as part of the vegetation that that forms the gardens of Almorah Crescent. The Island Plan specifically states that the GBZ policy is “a useful tool in achieving an appropriate lower intensity of building and a higher degree of open space”, and acknowledges the importance of private gardens in achieving this. The development, by virtue of the extensions and the creation of parking spaces, will result in the loss of much of the meaningful planting on the site and this demonstrates the cramped nature of the scheme. Access and Car Parking Access to each of the units will be created by the demolition of the existing garage/storage building that fronts onto Upper Midvale Road. No response has been received from the Parish (Highway Authority) however, the access is acceptable given that it is at the end of a one-way street (no through traffic) and given that an access (albeit less intensively used) exists. Two spaces per dwelling are proposed. This is acceptable, however, the manouvering space for each space is at least 1.5m short of the minimum requirement and therefore insufficient manouvering space is provided. Not only may this result in the spaces being unusable but would more likely result in much more manouvering on site. This in turn would result in unnecessary disturbance and fumes for the occupiers of the Octavia site and the adjacent buildings. Waste The development would give rise to a significant quantity of waste. This issue has not dealt with by the application and therefore it is contrary to Policy WM2. If an acceptable scheme were to be proposed for the site it is likely that the issue of waste could be dealt with adequately. Amenity Space The subdivided dwelling is proposed to be served by two separate areas of amenity space of over 50m2 and the new dwelling by an area of 36m2. The agent contends that the western areas are “very adequate” because they catch the afternoon and evening sun. No mention is made of the adequacy of the eastern amenity space except in relation to the potential to apply the amenity space standards flexibly. There are no exceptional circumstances on this site to justify making an exception to the requirement for a minimum 50m2 of amenity space. The amenity space for the “middle” unit is of a poor quality given that its average depth is just 4m, in-between Octavia and a tall granite wall. The amenity space for the westernmost unit is also of poor quality being only an average of 3.5m in width and would be partially overlooked. The agent has suggested that the balconies could be increased in size. Overlooking is an increasing concern in the area and it is considered that there is no reasonable justification for increasing the overlooking from this site in order to permit an overdevelopment of the site. Precedent The agent states the two closest developments 26 Upper Midvale Road and 26 Raleigh Avenue are more densely developed and therefore it is unreasonable to refuse the application at Octavia. The Octavia site has different circumstances. Due to the retention of the existing building, it has to rely upon an access drive rather than parking directly off of the street and thus has less land available for amenity space and the buildings themselves; and is forced to divide up the existing garden area rather than lay out new, more appropriate amenity areas. 26 Raleigh Avenue does not set a president for the overdevelopment of Octavia. The approved development reduced the number of separate units from 14 to 7 and therefore improved the parking and amenity space provision for each unit. This development allowed the amenity space available to be used more equable between the units as opposed to the proposed development at Octavia that reduces the quality and quantity of amenity space available. 26 Upper Midvale Road provides approximately 50m2 of amenity space per unit split between a usable garden area and a balcony. This is in contrast to the amenity spaces that are proposed for each of the proposed units which are severely compromised in terms of quality due to the intensity of the development. Each of these units has two accessible parking spaces and therefore meets the standard. Notwithstanding the agents comments about the use of the garages, the use of parking spaces at Oratavia equally cannot be guaranteed particularly given that their inadequate manouvering space means that they may not be used. The agent states that the demolition of the garage/store of “approximately [the] size of the new 2 bedroom house” will result in the “perceived openness of the site being much greater”. For the occupants of the proposed dwellings, this will not be the case given that the amenity spaces resulting from the development are cramped and harmed by the combination of car parking and layout.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Report dated September 2006 from agent. Letter from agent dated 22/11/06 Letters of representation

Endorsed by		Date