Pre-application advice for this project began in April 2005. An application was received on 14 September 2005 (P/2005/1623) to extend the garage and add a two storey wing to north and east at the subject property. The planning assessment stated that the proposal was acceptable because the existing ridge height was retained, cat slide dormers were used to reduce visual impact, gable ends faced the street and field, and traditional elements were maintained above eave height with modern adaptations below eave height. The principle of this extension in the Green Zone was to maintain traditional form above eave height but to permit modern interpretation below because there was a large hedge surrounding the property which obscured public visibility below eave height. The application was approved on 28 October 2005. The submitted plans were approved which showed a traditional formed window on the east elevation. A fax was received from the agent on 13 November 2005 requesting consideration of an alternative design for the window on the east elevation. In the reply letter of 22 November 2005 from the Planning Officer, it was re-iterated the reason why traditional form above eave level was important and that the alternative window steered too far away from traditional design. A fax was received from the agent on 19 April 2006 requesting consideration of an alternative design for the window on the east elevation. In the reply fax of 21 April 2006 from the Planning Officer, it was stated that a larger window could not be approved via a minor amendment because it would require advertising. This was to allow the adjoining neighbour to the east the opportunity to comment on the increased window size. A revised plans application was received on 10 October 2006 (RP/2006/2198) to enlarge the window to east elevation. The window remained central to the gable but was a larger proportion than traditional windows on the other gables. It was considered that in this instance a concession should be granted to permit a larger window but that it had to maintain traditional square proportion and remain central to the gable. The application was approved on 7 December 2006. The submitted plans were approved which showed a traditional square window central to the gable but larger than the windows on the other gables. A revised plans application was received on 5 July 2007 (RP/2007/1672) to add a canopy, extend the balcony and to re-locate the window to east elevation. The submitted plans showed the window shifted to the right of the gable which formed an irregular design against the roof line. Whilst the balcony extension was considered acceptable, the shifted and irregular window design was not. Again, it was considered that whilst a concession has been granted for a larger window, the proportion should remain sympathetic to the traditional design above eave level. The application was approved on 13 August 2007. The submitted plans were approved with the exception of the new design for the window on the east elevation. A condition was attached to the permit to this effect. The request for reconsideration was received on 20 August 2007 to remove the condition relating to the window design. The owner also suggests that if the relocation of the window is not supported, if a triangular window could be added to the corner. The owner argues that the relocated or additional window is needed to allow light into the room, would make the exterior of the building more symmetrical and is not visible from public view. The position of the Department has been clear since this project began in 2005. The form above eave level must be traditional in design to ensure the architectural integrity of the building is maintained. The window on the east elevation has been permitted to be enlarged, but must remain central to the gable and regular in proportion. The Department Architect supports this position. All correspondence and approved plans are attached with the background papers. | 
gov.je