Relevant History | This Report provides an up-date for the Minister, in relation to the above referenced planning application, further to the Department Report dated 26th March 2010, as considered at the Ministerial Hearing of 7th April 2010. The 26th March Report followed the successful Third Party Appeal against the original grant of planning permission, and provided the Minister with a recommendation following the submission and consideration of additional information, as per the December 2009 direction from the Royal Court. A copy of the 26th March Report is attached with the Background Papers. At the Ministerial Hearing of 7th April, the Minister decided to defer the application pending a further visit to the site, during which he proposed to visit every apartment or home in the ownership of an objector in order that he might better understand the factors and perspectives involved. A copy of the Minutes of the 7th April Ministerial Hearing are attached with the Background Papers. The Minister went to the site on 7th May, and visited 8 of the 10 apartments which were in the ownership of objectors, access was unavailable to apartments No. 13 and 21, but an access was obtained to apartment 20, which although not in the ownership of an objector did give a similar perspective to No. 21. The Minister returned to the site on 14th May having asked for the applicant to provide an indication of the position, within the 3-dimensional open quarry bowl, of where the intersection of the podium and tower for Block D would be situated. This was provided by land surveyors who identified the relevant point, marked by the use of an hydraulic platform. The identification of this position enabled the Minister to confirm the distance of this point on Block D from Park Heights, and to further understand which parts of the outlook from Park Heights would be ‘solids’ (i.e. the tower or podium of Block D) or ‘voids’ (i.e. the open areas to the south of the tower, above the podium). This context was viewed from within Park Heights, by revisiting several of the relevant apartments, and externally (along the southern façade of Park Heights) from a crane with hoist. |
Summary of Representations | Since the 7th April, there have been four further representations, all objecting to the development on the following basis: · Mr Dunn, Regent House
16 April 2010
Provides an assessment by Waterslade Engineers in the form of a drawing illustrating that following the development of Block D the windows to 9 apartments at Regent House would fail the BRE VSC and sunlight guidelines. · Carey Olsen
26 April 2010
Do not agree with the Officer’s conclusion in the 26th March Report that the negative impacts from the development of Block D are not unreasonable or inappropriate.
Do not agree that the submitted daylight / sunlight assessment provides an in-depth analysis on effects on individual apartments in Regent House.
Confirm that the issues in relation to amenity go wider than just views, and relate to light, privacy, views, value, visual intrusion, scale and massing. · “Regent House Owners and Occupiers”
[Apartments 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 21]
12 May 2010 Restate their previous representation, confirming their view that inadequate consideration has been given to the relationship and effect the development will have on Regent House. Confirm that concerns relate, primarily, to severe and material impacts and prejudice in relation to loss of amenity, by virtue of overlooking, visual mass and loss of daylight and sunlight, To support their position, the objectors have provided enclosures showing a computer generated image from Waterslade Engineers of the outlook from Regent House onto the flank wall of Block D; an assessment of the windows affected by Block D in relation to compliance with BRE Guidelines on sunlight, and a computer generated image showing the profile of Block C in relation to the rockface / skyline. The representation also highlights objections in relation to the general determination of the application, referring to non-compliance with Policies G2, G3, G4, G5, BE5 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan, in relation to visual impact, effect on character, Design Statements, Environmental Impact Assessment, height, form, and impact on the amenities of neighbours and the local environment. The representation also refers to inadequacies with the submitted details, referring to the number of conditions which need to be discharged, and the inconsistent relationship between the conclusions of the November 2008 and the February 2009 Department Reports. The letter concludes by repeating the earlier position – being that the objection would be withdrawn if the top 5 floors were removed from Regent House.
[N.B. The Department have asked for, and received, clarification regarding the scope work which resulted in the submitted ‘Waterslade’ enclosures with this representation and that of 16 April from Mr Dunn. It has been confirmed, by email of 14 June, that their brief was to undertake “an accurate daylight / sunlight analysis of the impact of Block D on Regent House”. It was also confirmed that the assessment related specifically to the windows, not balconies.] · Mr Jenkins, Regent House
28 May 2010
Restating a strong view that the development will destroy amenity and take nearly all of the light, being a clear infringement of human rights.
Questioning why a High Hedges Law was introduced, when developments with implications such as this are considered acceptable. A response to the letter from the Regent House Owners and Occupiers was received from the applicants lawyers (Appleby, 21st May 2010) providing a view that the representation raises little by way of new material. The lawyers suggest the exercise which the Minister is undertaking is set by the specific direction of the Royal Court in relation to receiving additional information regarding daylight / sunlight and the mass of Block D from Park Heights. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers |
Officer Assessment | As per the introduction, this report provides an up-date for the Minister, following the 7th April Ministerial Hearing and should be read in conjunction with the Department Report of 26th March 2010. The representations received since 7th April raise no substantive new matters which the Minister has not had before him in earlier Department Reports. The issues set out by the Regent House Owners and Occupiers in relation to policy compliance have been considered by the Minister in his determinations which followed the Department Reports of November 2008 and February 2009 when the Minister resolved to approve the application, subject to conditions, and considered the proposal represented an insubstantial departure from the Island Plan given the contribution the development would make towards meeting the Island’s housing needs within the Built-Up Area. The remaining issues are therefore those which were identified in the December 2009 Royal Court direction, and the various representations which have been received (including those considered in the 26th March Department Report and this Report) set out an opinion that, by virtue of overlooking, visual mass and loss of daylight and sunlight, Block D will cause a significant loss of amenity to Regent House. To support this position, the representations have included drawings from Waterslade Engineers in relation to the impact of Block D on sunlight / daylight at Regent House. There are two particular drawings of interest, being those two submitted with the 16 April letter from Mr Dunn (one of which is resubmitted as Enclosure B with the representation from the Regent House Owners and Occupiers of 12th May). These drawings have been submitted with little ‘context’, and having asked for clarification of the scope of instructions (as summarised earlier) there is still an issue with interpreting what is actually presented. For example, there is no ‘as is’ assessment to form a baseline, neither is there any indication of the time of year when the assessment has been undertaken (ie. is this a mid-winter ‘worst case’, or a year-round average, or somewhere between?). Notwithstanding the shortcomings, the Waterslade information submitted from the objectors does broadly synchronise with the general conclusions of the information from the applicant in their Shading Assessment produced by Peter Brett Associates – in that (as set out in the 26th March Department Report) it is evident that from the perspective of Regent House, that there will be a reduction in the daylight / sunlight levels. As equally relevant to both sets of assessments, the BRE Guidelines have no formal status in Jersey legislation but do represent a useful tool to assist in a determination within the framework of Planning Policy considerations, as set out in the Jersey Island Plan 2002. As was set out in the Report for the Ministerial Hearing of 7th April, the issues of daylight / sunlight, and visual impact, go beyond the apartment occupied by the original Third Party appellant (No. 17) and relate, to varying degrees, to a number of units with their primary aspect on the south elevation of Regent House. Generally, these are the same apartments which were visited by the Minister on 7th and 14th May, when he attended at the site. The submitted information, both from the applicant and objectors, also relates to the whole south elevation of Regent House, considering the impacts on all the apartments. |
Officer Recommendation | A review of the daylight / sunlight situation, and the visual impact assessment was provided in the Department Report of 26th March as considered at the Ministerial Hearing of 7th April 2010, following which the Minister visited the site twice, and has received and considered additional representations. Essentially, the position of the Department responds to the clear December 2009 direction from the Royal Court, and is unchanged from previously. The Department acknowledges that at Regent House there will undoubtedly be a reduction in daylight / sunlight and negative impacts in relation to the scale and mass of Block D. This was noted in the original Department Report from November 2008, and is demonstrated in the assessments from both the applicant and the objectors. The policies of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 require a judgement as to whether these impacts are unreasonable, or inappropriate, and having reviewed the submitted information it is the view of the Department, particularly in the context of the other benefits delivered by the application, that they are not unreasonable or inappropriate. APPROVAL with conditions / reasons from the original permit P/2008/0778 of 17 February 2009, having up-dated condition 26 to reflect the submitted Percentage for Art Statement, and now read: “A Percentage for Art contribution must be delivered in accordance with the Percentage for Art Statement submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. The approved work of art must be installed prior to the first use/occupation of any part of the development hereby approved. Reason: In accord with the provisions of Island Plan Policy BE12." |
gov.je