Policy Considerations (What are the presumptions) G2 (General Development Considerations), G3 (Quality of Design), BE8 (Important Open Space) and H8 (Housing Development in the Built Up Area). Land Use Implications The proposals will clearly change the use and appearance of this site. Detailed issues regarding access, design etc are discussed under the relevant headings to follow. The history of the site and the principle of any development is still a matter of contention. In July 2005 a projet was taken to the States to have the site removed from the designated Public Open Space given its background and that previous Committees had condoned the principle of some development of the site. The relevant history is set out in that projet and the chronology up to May 2005, both of which are attached. The States decided to maintain the site as part of the Important Open Space. The department has sought legal advice on whether, in the light of this, the Panel is obliged to grant permission as its predecessors had condoned the principle of some development. The advice received is that the applicant has a "legitimate expectation" of development given the previous Committees' decisions, and therefore that if an appeal is made, that the Court is likely to find in favour of the applicant. Some letters of objection have asked whether the neighbours should equally have a legitimate expectation that the site would be protected from development given its designation. It is indeed fair and correct to say that decisions should be made in accordance with the Island Plan. However, all decisions must take into account all material planning considerations, which in this case includes the history of this site. Moreover, policy BE8 states that development will not normally be allowed, but does not set a complete embargo upon development. The owner of site however has received specific advice from previous Committees upon which he may expect to rely. Size, Scale & Siting The previous refusal was in part based on the mass and design of the houses. In the new scheme, Unit 2's garage has been detached, allowing both units to move further from their neighbours, particularly Unit 1, (that closest to existing houses), which is moved south west and has a larger space to the east boundary. The criticised asymmetrical gables and high rear eaves have been omitted and the dormers reduced in size. The height of the houses, floor to ridge is marginally reduced from 7.4m to 7.23m. Their ridges are stated as 0.41m higher than the nearest house to the north east, and although their ridge height is shown to match that of the houses to the immediate north, their height, floor to ridge, is greater. The houses are however improved in their appearance from the refused scheme, and are not overly large, poorly proportioned or in design terms out of character with the mix of houses in the area. It is not therefore considered that refusal could be justified on grounds of design or size. Design & Use of Materials See Size, Scale and Siting above. No materials are stated on the elevation drawings. It is anticipated that the walls will be in render which is widely used on other properties in the immediate vicinity. It is recommended that the roofs be in slates - the predominant material in the area and less imposing than red pantiles. Impact on Neighbours As in the previous scheme, the buildings are positioned to minimise their impact on adjacent houses. Those relationships were not considered unacceptable. As before, House 1, that closest to other houses, has only one bedroom window at first floor facing north/north west, the others being to the landing and a bathroom. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations As noted above, and in the attached minutes, the access has been resolved. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping issues As before it is considered that hedges should form the south, east and west boundaries and a condition is proposed to this effect. Other Material Considerations None |