The applicant (Deputy Carolyn Labey) wishes to appeal against Condition No 1 on the planning permit. The agent’s letter dated 15th December 2005, states that, ‘It is our clients belief that Farmhouse Red concrete pantiles or cement fibre slates would be equally acceptable in this situation.’ No justification for these roofing materials has been provided. This property had permission for the demolition of the outbuilding and its replacement with a new kitchen/ breakfast room and a roof conversion in 1998 (planning reference 4066/G), these works were commenced, therefore the permit remains live. A request to vary one of the conditions on the permit was received in March 2005. Condition 2 on the permit stated that, ‘the use of Forticrete Centurion Autumn interlocking tiles to the roof covering of the proposed kitchen/ breakfast room is not approved. Details of the proposed roof covering, which shall be a natural clay pantile, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Planning and Environment Committee.’ The Committee had been referred to for this matter because the applicant was a States Member. The Committee felt that alternatives should be explored but that a natural clay pantile would be preferred. The applicant had mentioned in an email to the Department on February 9th 2005, she noted that, “each of the builders I have approached has been unable to give me a price because there are insufficient natural clay pantiles available in the island – now and always – to do the job. They have also expressed reservations as to the availability of anyone to lay them if there were enough.” The type of roof material was partially explored by the applicant but never clarified and the matter never resolved after the Committee meeting. In October 2005, a new application was received for the demolition of the outbuilding and its replacement with a kitchen/ breakfast room, but this time with a small extension into the garden area of the cottage, therefore requiring a new application. Given the recent history of the previous request to vary the condition and following the wishes of Deputy Labey to save money, again the application was considered by the Committee and the issue of either having clay pantiles or concrete pantiles on the roof was discussed during the Committee meeting. In considering Deputy Labey’s wish to use cheaper materials, the Sub-Committee had agreed either a clay pantile or corrugated iron (often seen as a more temporary roofing material on an outbuilding), could be used as an alternative to clay. They also agreed the alternatives, and slightly more modern materials of zinc or lead, these are however likely to be more expensive materials than clay pantiles or corrugated iron. Local suppliers including Pentagon, Normans and Quantam are all able to order clay pantiles. It was agreed that a condition would be placed on the permit to state that concrete pantiles are not agreed and that either clay, lead, zinc or corrugated iron would be acceptable alternatives. It is entirely consistent with the Panel’s approach on registered buildings to require roof tiles to be natural and traditional. In offering comments on the previous request for reconsideration, the Assistant Director of Design and Conservation noted that Le Petit Parcq is part of a Proposed SSI. Whilst raising no objection in principle to the work, he noted that the roof should be a natural clay pantile. A material often used on outbuildings of historic buildings as a contrast to slate often used on the main part of the property. The comments offered on this application, from the Design and Conservation Section, on the preferred type of roofing material, insisted that clay pantiles should be used in accordance with the Committee’s advice in March 2005. The building remains on the register as a proposed Site of Special Interest and therefore it is considered consistent with the Panel’s normal approach to require that a natural high quality sensitive material is used, in accordance with the Design and Conservation Section’s recommendations. | 
gov.je