Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John: Planning Application: 'Calling-in' for Determination by 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 20 April 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0037			Application Number: P/2011/1519 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John.		Date of Decision Summary:		16 April 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Principal 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:
Written Report Title :	P/2011/1519 Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John.		Date of Written Report:		10 April 2012
Written Report Author:	Senior Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: P/2011/1519 Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John. Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 4 No. dwellings.
Decision(s): In accordance with the Code of Conduct for the Minister of Planning and Environment in the determination of planning applications and pre-application advice (MD-PE-2011-0120) the Minister confirmed he is calling-in this application for his determination.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister has considered the planning history of the site, and noted the pending appeal for an earlier application. Given this context, and the important policy considerations (particularly in relation to Employment Land and the Green Zone) the Minister considers this is an application with island-wide significance.
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):

Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John: Planning Application: 'Calling-in' for Determination by 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

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)Department of the Environment

Report for Planning Applications Panel/ Ministerial Meeting

Site Visit (delete if no SV required)

1.Application Number

P/2011/1519

2.Site Address	Le Catelet Farm, La Route de St. Jean, St. John, JE3 4EN.

3.Applicant	St John's Manor Farms (1980) Ltd

4.Description	Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 4 No. dwellings.

5.Type	Planning

6.Date Validated	17/11/2011

7. Zones & Constraints	Green Zone Primary Route Network
Summary	Planning permission for the re-development of this commercial shed site was refused, grounds of architecture and scale, under the policies of the current Island Plan in July 2011 [P/2011/0154]. An appeal has been lodged against the refusal and this is currently held pending the outcome of this latest application. It should be noted that loss of employment land [Policy E1] did not feature as a reason for refusal, owing to other mitigating factors such as significant landscape restoration, reduction in commercial traffic, reduction in flood risk and removal of two substantial sheds. It is also to be noted that the Department has held several meetings with the applicant and agent in order to discuss a strategy for overcoming the reasons for refusal of Application No. P/2011/0154. This latest application successfully addresses all the Department’s previous concerns, with a reduced scale of development in a form that is acceptable for this site. No objections have been received and there are clear environmental gains to be had in clearing the large old sheds and restoring some of the landscape character on the fringes of the site. Given the history and circumstances behind this application, the Department contends that the applicants have a clear and reasonable expectation to secure a planning permission for the sensitive redevelopment of the site. A Royal Court Appeal is also held ‘stayed’, following an earlier refusal for 6 dwellings in 2010, pending the outcome of this application.
Department Recommendation	APPROVAL

8.Site Description & Existing Use

The site is on the northern site of La Route de St. Jean, between St Mary’s village and St John’s. The site is accessed via a 60m driveway and is not readily visible from the main road.

The site accommodates two former agricultural sheds now used as an operational base by a landscaping business which also manufactures pre-cast concrete garden features.

9.Proposed Development

Residential – 4 dwellings.

10.Relevant Planning History

P/2011/0154 - Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 3 No. dwellings. Refused contrary to officer recommendation for the following reason:

“1. The application fails to present a high quality of architecture that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the landscape and built context of this rural area. It is further considered that the inappropriate scale, location and form of the proposed development would detract from, and unreasonably harm, the character of the area. Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with the provisions of Policies GD1, GD2, GD7 and NE7 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2011”. [4/07/2011]

P/2009/2417 - Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 6 No. dwellings. Refused. An appeal has been lodged at the Royal Court and is held pending.

RP/2007/1161 – Retrospective: change of use of storage shed to the manufacture of pre-cast cement products. Approved (Feb 2009).

P/2003/2109 – Change of use from dry storage to hand assembly of sports cars. Approved.

P/2003/0471 – Change of use of agricultural buildings to dry storage. Approved.

11.Consultations

Highways section of TTS in its letter dated 8th December 2011 state that a proposed passing point on the driveway is acceptable. A footway along the main road would have been desirable from a highways standpoint, but the requisite land is not within the applicant’s ownership.

Drainage section of TTS in its letter dated 16th December 2011supports the introduction of soakaways as they will help alleviate flooding in the locality and note that the new development will connect to the public foul sewer rather than relying on the existing septic tank.

Health Protection Team of H&SS in its letter dated

Land Controls and Agricultural Development Section of DoE in its letter dated 28 November 2011 states that the shed has not been used for agricultural purposes for 17+ years and, therefore raise no objections to the proposal, subject to a suitable access being retained for the adjacent farm land.

Natural Environment Section of DoE in its letter dated 2nd December 2011 commend the proposed re-planting of hedgerows, subject to appropriate species and also point out the developer’s responsibilities in terms of the Wildlife Law. [The agent has responded stating that his clients are fully aware of their responsibility under the Wildlife Law – it is not, therefore considered necessary to condition this aspect as any breach of law will have been committed in the knowledge of the requirements of that Law and would be dealt with appropriately].

Environmental Protection Section of DoE in its letter dated 13th December 2011 recommend that prior to any development commencing, investigations be carried out into possible ground contaminants. If found, appropriate mitigation measures should be implemented.

All consultations are attached with the background papers

12.Representations

No representations were received.

13.Planning

Assessment

a)Policy Considerations

SP1 – Outside the Built-up Area, planning permission will only be given for (among other things) development appropriate to the countryside and, where it meets an identified need. In this instance, the site accommodates a pair of substantial industrial / storage sheds. Neither of the structures has any intrinsic merit and the proximity of the shed to the existing house could be problematic in amenity terms if the use of the shed intensified. As it is, however, the current use of the shed is not resulting in any unreasonable loss of amenity to nearby residents.

The erection of a well-designed, traditionally formed residential development to provide 4 new homes to replace both structures is considered more appropriate to the site and to the wider built context.

SP2 – Development should make the most efficient and effective use of land, energy, water resources and buildings. New development should secure the highest viable resource efficiency in terms of the re-use of existing land and buildings. In this instance, it is noted that the existing shed on site is in commercial use and capable of still being used for commercial purposes. The replacement of an entirely useable structure is not considered to represent the most efficient and effective use of the land, but, in this instance, the planning history of the site is pertinent in that previous determinations have not considered the loss of the sheds as being unacceptable.

SP3 – A sequential approach to the assessment of development proposals will be taken in order to support a more sustainable pattern of development and the more efficient and effective use of land, energy and buildings. The sequential approach favours development within the Built-up Area and seeks to dissuade unnecessary or inappropriate development within the Green Zone. In this instance, a balance has to be struck between the siting of two large commercial sheds, which themselves would be better suited to an Industrial Site within the Built up Area, and the erection of a less intense form of development like the submitted proposals. The Department considers that the balance tips in favour of allowing a well-designed and modest residential development to replace the sheds. Policy SP3 is, accordingly, not considered to be unreasonably conflicted.

GD 1 – Outlines the material considerations against which all development proposals will be tested, including the need for the highest standard of design and construction and the need to prevent unreasonable harm to neighbour amenity or to the character of an area. In this instance, the proposed new dwellings are orientated and designed in such a way as to minimise the potential for any unreasonable impact upon neighbour amenity. The design standard is considered to be good.

GD 2 – In the case of replacement buildings, the new buildings must enhance the appearance of the site and surroundings and should be seen to replace a building that is not appropriate to repair or refurbish. In this instance, it is clear that the new buildings would be a substantial improvement over the design and appearance of the existing structures on site.

GD7 - Requires a high quality of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the landscape and built context. In this instance, the quality of design is of a good standard.

NE7 – Presumption against the redevelopment of commercial sites, but that exceptions may be made where it would give rise to substantial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area. This is considered to be case here, with substantial improvements to the site and landscape restoration being an integral part of the proposal. NE7 is not, therefore considered to be unreasonably compromised by the proposal.

E1 – Presumes against the loss of employment land unless it is demonstrated that the site is inappropriate for any employment use to continue or where the existing use is generating environmental problems such as noise, pollution or unacceptable levels of traffic. In this instance, the Department accepts that the site is not currently operating as a ‘bad-neighbour’ and that the loss of employment land is contrary to Policy E1.

However, as outlined in the remainder of this report, the Department does consider that there are substantial mitigating circumstances surrounding both the detail of this application and the history that has led to its submission. The loss of employment land is, therefore, not considered to be the determinative factor in this case.

b)Size, scale

Form and Siting

The proposed scheme represents a 23% reduction in floor area compared with the existing sheds and would lead to a less consolidated form of development. The form of development also replicates a pleasant court-yard of vernacular farm buildings with a higher-status neo-classical dwelling directly adjacent. The Department accepts that this is an appropriate solution to finding a form that fits the site successfully.

c)Architectural Design and Use of Materials

The scheme has been worked up with substantial liaison between the agent and officers of the Department. Architecture and use of materials is considered to be of the requisite high standard and compliant with the requirements of Policy GD7.

d) Impact In the

Landscape/Street

The proposed development will not be readily seen from the road and will have a lesser impact on the rural landscape than the existing sheds and significant areas of open storage.

e) Impact on

Neighbours

The proposal should have a lesser impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents than that of the current commercial operations on site. No objections have been received to the proposal.

f) Access, Car

Parking & Highways

Considerations

All acceptable and within the Department’s guidelines.

g) Foul Sewage &

Surface Water

Disposal

Connection to the public sewer will be made and surface water will be directed to new on-site soakaways.

h) Landscaping

The proposal includes for an integral landscaping scheme, although species need to be appropriate in terms of strengthening habitat and bio-diversity.

i) Archaeology

No known implication.

j)Waste Management

A Waste Management Plan has been submitted and the applicants are aware of procedure in case of asbestos being discovered in the shed construction.

k)Planning Obligations

& Percent for Art

A Percentage for Art Statement dated 24/5/2011 accompanies the Design Statement and this is considered acceptable.

l)Contaminated Land

Condition is recommended requiring further investigation into possible ground contaminants.

m) Sustainability

The proposed development will be constructed to latest Bye-Law standards which aim to increase thermal efficiency etc.

n) Other Matters

None.

14. Conclusion

This latest application successfully addresses all the Department’s previous concerns, with a reduced scale of development in a form that is acceptable for this site. No objections have been received and there are clear environmental gains to be had in clearing the large old sheds and restoring some of the landscape character on the fringes of the site.

15.Department Recommendation

16. Conditions (Reasons in Italics after each condition)

1. Notwithstanding the submitted plans, a complete schedule of all external materials (including finished colours) and surfacing, precise siting, finishes and, method of opening & reveal depths, all wall & roofing materials, new windows, external doors, lighting and rainwater goods shall be submitted to and approved by the Department and such schedule shall thereafter adhered to unless otherwise agreed by the Department. The schedule shall include physical samples of all external materials to be used.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order, 2008, no alterations, additions, extensions, windows, doors, fences, walls, sheds, illumination or other structures shall be installed, affixed or erected on any part of the site or building therein without the prior written approval of the Department.

3. Details of all external lighting, including lighting of the buildings, driveway and security lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment and such details shall include measures to prevent unecessary light pollution and of maintaining the dark night sky policy of the Department.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, an Ecological Survey of the site shall be carried out by a suitably qualified professional and mitigation measures implemented thereafter in order to protect any habitats, current dreys or nests found.

5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of a scheme of planting which will provide a substantial hedgerow planting shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. This scheme shall include details of;

i) all existing trees, hedgerows and other plants, walls, fences and other features on that boundary;

ii) the position of all new trees and/or shrubs including 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; and,

iii) the measures to be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs; and,

must be implemented in the next available planting season after completion of the development approved.

6. . Prior to the commencement of development, a thorough investigative study shall be carried out by a competent person to establish the extent of any ground contamination and potential risk to human health and the wider environment, including risks during and after the construction phase. In the event that contamination is found to be likely then suitable mitigation measures shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister and such measures as identified shall be implemented before the dwelling is first occupied.

7. A work of art shall be delivered in the form as agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment and detailed in the Statement dated 24th May 2011. The approved work of art must be installed prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved unless otherwise agreed in writing.

17. Reason for

Approval The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policy SP1, SP2, SP3, GD1, GD2, GD7, NE7 and E1 of the 2011 Island Plan.

The proposed development is of a high quality of architecture and form of development that will secure substantial environmental gains and will help restore landscape character as well strengthen bio-diversity. The connection of the site to public sewer and use of on-site soakaways to prevent flooding will also represent a significant benefit to the locality. The loss of employment land is, to a degree, regrettable, but given the circumstances of the case and the improvements to the countryside character of the area, this loss is considered to be outweighed by those improvements.

18. Background

Papers 1:2500 Location Plan

5 consultation responses

2 responses from agent/ applicant

Endorsed by:

Date: