Policy Considerations As described in the report on the original Outline application, the site lies within the Green Zone wherein Island Plan Policy C5 sets out a clear presumption against development. In this case, however, the unique history of the site is an essential issue. In the original Island Plan the site was designated as part of the Built Up Area, and whilst still designated as Built Up Area an application was made for construction of 2 dwellings on the site. Although refused, the Committee of the time conceded the principle of some development on the site. This decision underlies all of the subsequent planning history and the Department's reports and recommendations. The principle of development has since been accepted through the approval of the Outline application. The issues to be considered as part of this Reserved Matters application are more matters of detail such as the positioning, size, design, impact on neighbours, car parking, landscaping, etc. In this regard the requirements of Policy G2 (General Development Considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design) are particularly important. In addition, although the principle of development has been accepted, Policy C5 (Green Zone) is still relevant insofar as any development should take account of the impact on that landscape, whilst accepting that some form of development has been formally accepted. Land Use Implications None. The principle of the development of the site has already been accepted, no new land use issues are raised through this Reserved Matters application. Size, Scale and Siting The proposed dwelling is substantial, and similar to that previously refused Planning Permission. It has, however, been amended in an attempt to reduce its apparent impact, particularly on the street, and also the adjacent property to the north. It is designed to appear predominantly single storey from the road with a flat roof and a clear horizontal emphasis. The highest point of the building is below the ridge of the property to the south and below the eaves of the property to the north. In general terms a smaller building on a site will usually have a lesser landscape impact. In this case the applicant's aspirations are clearly for a larger building. To avoid the building appearing too large or imposing, clever use has been made of the levels on the site. The main part of the building does include two storeys of accommodation, on split-levels. The lower level is half a floor below the level of the garage wing, and the first floor is half a floor above the garage wing. The building therefore uses the slope of the land to reduce the apparent impact of the building when viewed from the street. In addition, a large basement is included comprising a garage with 8 parking spaces and a lift, together with storage area and a further unlabelled area. This adds to the proposed floor area, but has little landscape impact. Some of the re-excavated material will be re-used on site. The remainder will be removed. The ground floor comprises 5 bedrooms and an integral one bedroom unit. At first floor there is an open-plan kitchen/living/dining area, together with a small study. The first floor area is reduced in size and height from the previous scheme and although the building does project further west than the adjacent properties, it is not considered that any overbearing impact would be so significant as to justify the refusal of planning permission. Some objectors consider that the scale of the building is out of keeping with the area. This is indeed a subjective issue. There are, however, a mixture of plot and building sizes in the area. Many are smaller than the proposed building, but there are buildings with larger footprints, some on smaller sites than is proposed. It is not considered that this building is so clearly out of keeping with the mixed nature of development in the area that this could justify the refusal of planning permission. Design and Use of Materials The design of the building is similar to the previously refused scheme which the Department considered was a clever use of materials, levels and design, with a contemporary style and a good use of local materials. As such, it was, and still is, considered to meet the Minister's design requirements. Materials include large areas of granite, together with render panels, a sedum flat roof, and aluminium glazing, fascias and soffits. The suggestion has been made that the building could be positioned more centrally on the site rather than pushed towards the northern boundary. The position shown is, however, the result of an earlier request in the history of this site where the Department recommended that to retain some of the views through the site that the southern part of the site should be left open. The value and necessary size of this area is a matter of judgement, and if it is considered important, then details of landscaping will need to be required. Some landscaping details are included, the majority of which appear acceptable but with some areas where taller plants are proposed which may impede the views. The Department's recommendation is that the position of the building is appropriate, but that the landscaping is not. Impact on Neighbours As discussed in the previous section, it is considered that the position of the building will enable much of the site to remain open, and that the building due to its size and height will not result in such an overbearing impact on the adjacent property to the north that would justify the refusal of planning permission, noting also that the property sits at a higher level than the proposed development. With regard to overlooking, there are 2 west facing balconies evident at the upper level but they are partly enclosed and not considered likely to lead to significant overlooking. The building also includes a large first floor window on both the north and south elevations. That on the north is shown to be obscurely glazed. That on the south is not. Although this window is a reasonable distance from the southern boundary, because it faces across the adjacent garden rather than down the gardens as is more typical, it is considered that a large window here could result in an unreasonable level of overlooking of the adjacent property. It is recommended, therefore, that this window should be obscurely glazed. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The comments of TTS Highways Section are awaited but the details shown suggest that the applicant has taken account of the requirements for satisfactory visibility for vehicles. The site includes surface car parking together with a lift down to a large garage area which easily satisfies the Department's standards for car parking. Foul Sewage Disposal It is proposed to connect the dwelling to the foul sewer system. Landscaping issues The existing hedges on the northern and southern boundaries have always been important in separating any development on this site from its neighbours. A condition is recommended to ensure that these hedges are retained. As discussed above, it is also considered important that if the building is pushed towards the northern part of the site, the remainder of the site appears relatively open. It is important, therefore, that any landscaping avoids the use of structures or plants which will impede this view. A full landscaping scheme is therefore recommended as a condition of any planning approval. Other Material Considerations The construction of the basement will involve a large volume of excavation. It is proposed that most of this material be taken off site for recycling. The development includes a small integral unit and this is not considered unacceptable, but a condition is recommended to ensure that this remains integral and is used for ancillary purposes solely for guests, staff or a dependent relative. One objection notes that the loss of agricultural land has not been included in the previous reasons for refusal and questions why this is the case. The agricultural use of the site was however discussed in the earliest application on the site. Although the site is an agricultural field, and had previously been used for agricultural purposes, it was felt when the first applications were considered on this site, that it was wholly inappropriate to refuse an application for development on the basis that the site was of agricultural value, when it had been specifically designated as Built Up Area in the Island Plan. For that reason, those applications were not refused on the basis of loss of agricultural land. Likewise, as it was not raised at that time as a justifiable reason for refusal, the loss of agricultural land has not been included in any subsequent refusals. It is therefore entirely inappropriate to introduce it as a new issue, noting particularly that the principle of development has already been accepted by the Outline Planning Permission and that the application now before the Minister is for consideration of Reserved Matters only. | 
gov.je