The proposal relates to the conversion of an existing garage to a 1 bed cottage. In support of the reconsideration request, the applicants’ agent has stated the following: i) When the application for the new garage was originally approved in 2003 it was not approved for the benefit of any specific dwelling in the vicinity (i.e. it is a planning use in its own right), and the only relevant condition attached to the permit requires that it “only be used for the parking of domestic vehicles and shall not be used for any industrial, commercial or business use whatsoever” Whilst the owner of the garage (who lived remotely from it) did use it for domestic storage purposes, he has since moved to a large property with improved storage facilities, thus rendering the garage redundant for his purpose. Given that it is a separate planning unit, not tied to any other land or building, the owner is under no obligation whatsoever to sell or lease the garage to any of the neighbouring properties; ii) Insufficient weight was given to policies G1, G15 and G16 of the Island Plan which encourages the re-use of existing buildings wherever possible, because this represents a sustainable use of existing resources. iii) Too much weight was given to policies G2, G13, Interim Policy HB8 and C6. Policy H8 was also used as a reason for refusal but this policy relates only to land within the Built-Up Area and as the site is within the Countryside Zone, Policy H8 is not relevant; iv) Externally, the works to convert the garage to a residential use are ‘small scale’ and not considered to harm the character and setting of the Building of Local Interest (BLI); v) The issue of whether or not a garage would harm the character and setting of the BLI must have been considered when the garage was originally approved in 2003 under the same Island Plan regime; vi) The buildings closest to the garage known as L’ Amourette and 1-4 Hambie Grange, are not part of the BLI and the principal historic and architectural elevations of those buildings that are, i.e. La Hambie Farm, La Hambie Farm Cottage and the 2 outbuildings to the west are remote from the garage and it is difficult to understand how their character and setting would be harmed as a consequence; vii) The building already exists and it is only cramped with respect to the roadside boundary, not unlike those routinely found with buildings of traditional farm groups; it would only be formed into a single bedroom unit of accommodation with requisite car parking and amenity space and the fenestration is only formed at ground floor level set some 5 to 7 metres behind a 1.8m high party wall. Consequently, the development will not be harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties; viii) No neighbour or technical objections were received; ix) Reference is made to comparable cases which have all been approved since the Island Plan (2002). These are a) Les Pallieres, St. Ouen (P/2003/0392), b) Les Catieaux, Trinity (P/2003/1601) and c) Lisburn, St. Brelade (P/2005/1496). In the case of both a) and b) planning permission was granted to convert the existing modern garages into 2 and 3 bed dwellings respectively. Both cases were considered to be acceptable by the Planning Committee. Furthermore, Les Pallieres is registered as a Building of Local Interest and Les Catieaux is registered as a Proposed Site of Special Interest. In the case of c), this property had a similar sized garden to that currently proposed at La Hambie Farm and was granted following referral of the original decision (to refuse) to the States Greffe. The case was reviewed by the Planning Minister and planning permission was subsequently granted. The responses to the above are as follows: i) The principle of a garage in this location as a replacement for a demolished barn was originally accepted in 1995 and subsequently approved in 2003 under the 2002 Island Plan, given that there had been no significant change in circumstances since that time. In 1995, the garage was approved for domestic use (it was not tied to any specific dwelling) and it was considered unreasonable to ensure that this was done for the 2003 application. Accordingly, the 2003 permit was conditioned to control the use of the garage for the parking of domestic vehicles and shall not be used for any industrial, commercial or business use whatsoever. Whilst the owner has stated that it is currently redundant for his purpose and whilst it is not tied to any particular dwelling unit or land, nevertheless, it does provide the opportunity to enable vehicles to be parked off road, out of sight, which would be lost should the reconsideration request be approved and there is no reason why it could not be utilised by another occupant. ii) Whilst Policies G1, G15 and G16 refer to the re-use of existing buildings wherever possible in order to represent a sustainable use of existing resources, these Policies also confirm that this is only possible where this is practicable and appropriate and where consideration is subject to a balanced and objective decision making process. iii) The application was considered using the context of the Policies relevant to the particular application i.e. Policies G2, G13, Interim Policy HB8, H8 and C6. Whilst it is accepted that Policy H8 refers to development in the Built-up Area and the site is located within the Countryside Zone, Policy G2 is the General Development Considerations policy, G13 relates to Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest, The Interim Policy HB8 refers to the safeguarding of the character and setting of registered buildings and C6 refers to development in the Countryside Zone. iv) The works to the garage would involve the insertion of new inappropriately scaled windows and doors to the south elevation and 2no. roof lights in both the south and north elevation roof planes. Whilst the windows and doors would be of timber construction and the roof lights of the ‘conservation type’, the details would be inappropriate and detrimental to the setting of the registered group of buildings. v) As confirmed in i) above, the garage was originally approved in 1995 and when considered again in 2003, it was felt that the scale, position of the garage was not harmful to the character of the area. vi) The Historic Buildings Officer believes that the siting of the building already harms the setting of the Registered Building Group, as does the proposal for displaced parking. Although the parking is not intended for any specific residential unit, it is reasonable to argue that displaced parking will harm the setting of the building, given that the site would now have to provide parking outside thus harming the setting. Furthermore, whilst it is acknowledged that the two most immediate properties to the garage are not Registered, nevertheless, two of this terrace of five properties are (and are located in close proximity to the garage) and it is considered inappropriate to convert the garage to a further residential use because of the adverse impact on the setting of these buildings. The listing does not refer to specific elevations of the Registered properties which may or may not have principal historic and architectural elevations. Instead, the listing refers to the whole building. vii) The proposed principal windows to the garage conversion will be located just 8.8m from the existing principal windows to the two storey property directly to the south. Whilst there is an existing 1.8m high boundary wall between the two, the existing property will have its amenities reduced by the introduction of a new residential use in this location. This reduction in amenity is further compounded by the location of the only area within the site where the proposed private amenity space to serve the new development can be provided. This area is located between the garage and the 1.8m high wall. The existing property has principal windows at both ground floor and second floor only 3.5m from the boundary wall and the location of the amenity space will result in a loss of privacy and amenity for both the existing occupants and the proposed occupants of the garage conversion. Policy C6 also confirms that whilst developments such as the conversion of existing buildings to appropriate and non-intrusive residential may be acceptable in the Countryside Zone, the scale, location and design should not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside. viii) Noted. viii) The reference to comparable cases is noted. However, each planning application should be treated on its own particular merits having due regard to all material considerations pertaining to it. In any event, precedence has no formal concept in the planning system. Statute requires that all applications are determined in accordance with Article 19 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, which states that ‘The Minister in determining an application for planning permission shall take into account all material considerations’ In this particular instance, the stated cases are not considered to be material to the determination of the proposal. | 
gov.je