Background Permission was given for the conversion of these outbuildings to 5 residential units in December 2003. Thereafter the purchase of units 1 to 3 went ahead on the quite reasonable understanding (on the part of the prospective new residents) that the parking arrangements were to be in accordance with the approved drawings. Although these three units were sold off, the parking area as a whole remained under the ownership of Seltic Ltd which retains the right to allocate parking as it sees fit (the units have each been designated two parking spaces but, crucially, not two specific spaces). At this time, units 4 and 5 remained within the ownership of Seltic Ltd and parking for these two units was to be accessed via the main driveway to La Hougue Manor to the south. Because these units remained within the owner’s control, he could obviously exercise a fair degree of control over who would have access (furthermore, my understanding at this time is that unit 4 is unoccupied). The situation now is that Seltic Ltd wishes to sell these last two units. However, rather than continuing to allow access to units 4 & 5 to be via his driveway, the owner of La Hougue Manor wishes for future residents of these units to park within the main courtyard to the rear. To this end, Seltic Ltd has proposed a configuration of the courtyard space to allow for all the necessary parking for these 5 units to be located within this space. It would seem that Seltic Ltd has never actually undertaken the creation of the approved parking for units 4 & 5 adjacent to La Hougue Manor and that the parking arrangement has, in effect, been operating already in the manner proposed here; in this sense, this application is seeking to formalise an existing situation. Policy Considerations This development consists of two 3-bedroom houses and three 2-bedroom houses. The minimum requirement for car parking (in accordance Parking Guidance note no. 3) is 14 spaces (12 for residents, plus 2 visitor spaces). The scheme as proposed would provide 13 spaces (11 for residents and 2 visitor spaces) and as such this new scheme would fall short by 1 space. The development was approved with extremely limited amenity space, none of which is private, as a concession to allow the retention and conversion of this registered farm group. As such there is little scope to further reduce the provision of facilities for these 5 units. The agent suggests that there exists a covenant on each property owner which limits the car parking allocation to two cars per unit. However, this is an academic point because, whilst it may be true, private legal covenants do not overrule the requirements of the Planning Law and Jersey Island Plan, 2002. Car par size It was previously suggested that the courtyard had been constructed narrower than approved (12m wide instead of 13m). However, following a re-measure of this area, this appears not to be the case and the width is actually the full 13m. The width requirements for this area would be, strictly speaking, 13.3m – broken down as follows; head-on space 4.8m, clear zone 6.1m, in-line parking space 2.4m (please see attached drawing at the end) This would leave just a 300mm shortfall on the space necessary which, were that the only problem, would seem to be an unduly harsh reason for refusal. However, there are other faults with the proposed scheme. In terms of the courtyard length, there would appear to be a discrepancy between the submitted drawing and the site which would likely render unworkable the scheme as proposed. The drawing indicates that the overall length of the straight section of the north-western boundary wall is 20.5m (beyond this point at the southern end the wall begins to curve around). However, I measured this distance and found it to be 18m, which, if this is the case, would preclude the possibility of including space no. 11 as shown on this latest scheme as this space would interfere with the usability of space no. 7. Similarly, the distance shown along the astern elevation of units 1 and 2 appears to be longer than in reality. This combined with the fact the inline spaces along this wall have been drawn to an insufficient length (4.8m rather than 6.1m) means that it is likely that space no. 10 would project beyond the tip of unit 1 which would be unacceptable. However, with all of these shortcomings, the measurements involved are of a relatively small magnitude and a measuring error on the part of either side could make the difference. Therefore a precise site survey, professionally undertaken at the client’s expense, would be desirable in order to be able to accurately determine exactly whether or not the area in question is of a sufficient size. However, on the basis of the information currently available it would seem that the area is not large enough to accommodate the number of spaces required and that, as a result, this refusal ought to be maintained. The view of the neighbours that there would be an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance as a result of these proposed changes would seem unreasonable – this is currently a well used carpark as it stands. One other issue worthy of mention here is that of accessibility for a fire appliance. It would seem that, whilst not impossible, such access is tricky and the proposed scheme would worsen the situation in this respect. Landscaping & store The original approved scheme included a fair amount of landscaping; the latest proposed scheme also includes some landscaping which I believe would be acceptable. However, in the event that the car park fails to allow for all the spaces necessary, much of this landscaping might have to disappear in order to make room for the spaces – this would be disappointing to say the least and made for an environment very harsh in appearance. One of the neighbours has expressed concern at the proposal for a small communal external store in the corner of the courtyard as this would lie just outside the window of a ground floor bedroom. I would suggest that this store not be approved. Summary It has not been demonstrated that the 11 spaces indicated on the submitted site plan do, in fact, adequately fit into the courtyard area (where only 7 were originally approved). It would seem that if the department is prepared to relax its requirements in terms of the size of both parking spaces and turning areas) then it would be possible to ‘squeeze’ in 11 spaces. However, this would leave very limited room indeed for a landscaping scheme (quite in contrast to the originally approved scheme). Furthermore, this would still leave the development as a whole one space short of the 14 spaces required. The only means of providing sufficient parking to meet with the department’s standards is to provide some of the parking outside of the courtyard area. | 
gov.je