427

KML/MH/172

PLANNING COMMITTEE

(28th Meeting)

1st June 2017

PART A

All members were present, with the exception of Deputies R. Labey and R.J.

Rondel, both of St. Helier, from whom apologies had been received.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary, Chairman

(except for item No. A7)

Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity, Vice-Chairman

(except for item Nos. A4 and A11)

Deputy J.M. Maçon of St Saviour

(not present for item Nos. A14 – A18)

Deputy G.J. Truscott of St. Brelade

Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier

(not present for item Nos. A14 – A18)

In attendance -

P. Le Gresley, Director, Development Control

(not present for item Nos. A1 – A5)

A. Townsend, Principal Planner (present for item Nos. A1 – A5 only)

C. Jones, Senior Planner

L. Davies, Planner

R. Hampson, Planner

R. Greig, Planner

G. Duffell, Assistant Senior Planner

S.H. Chang, Trainee Planner

T. Ingle, Principal Historic Environment Officer

K.M. Larbalestier, Committee Clerk, States Greffe

Note: The Minutes of this meeting comprise Part A only.

Minutes. A1. The Minutes of the meetings held on 27th April and 25th May 2017, having

been previously circulated, were taken as read and were confirmed.

Couelle

Cottage, La

Rue du Coin,

St. Ouen:

proposed

extension/

alteration of

access/external

alterations

(RFR).

477/5/3(994)

P/2016/1874

A2. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A11 of 27th April 2017,

considered a report in connexion with an application which had sought permission

for the construction of an extension to the east elevation of the property known as

Couelle Cottage, La Rue du Coin, St. Ouen. It was also proposed to alter the

vehicular access on to La Rue du Coin and carry out various external alterations, to

include replacing the roof, altering land levels and installing hard standing. The

Committee had visited the site on 25th April 2017.

The Committee recalled that it had been minded to approve the above application,

contrary to the officer recommendation. For the purpose of formally setting out the

reasons for approval and any conditions which were to be attached to the permit, the

application was represented.

428

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

Having noted the condition which was to be attached to the permit, as set out in the

officer report, the Committee confirmed its approval of the application.

B&Q

Supercentre,

Queens Road,

St. Helier:

variation of

condition to

allow Sunday

trading.

477/5/1(488)

RC/2017/0388

A3. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A6 of 20th October 2016,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed a variation in

condition No. 7 of permit reference P/1998/1002, condition No. 11 of permit

reference PP/1997/0699 and condition No. 6 of permit reference PB/1998/2777

issued to B&Q Supercentre, Queen’s Road, St. Helier so as to allow the store to open

on 9 Sundays a year. The Committee noted that no such conditions had been imposed

on the other retailers operating from the application site. The Committee had visited

the application site on 30th May 2017.

A site plan was displayed. The Committee noted that the application site was located

in the Built-Up Area and the Green Backdrop Zone. Policies GD1 and E1 were

relevant to the application.

The Committee was advised that the main concern with regard to the additional

Sunday opening days was the impact on residents in terms of noise and disturbance

arising from the use of the car park and the potential for increased traffic movements.

In granting temporary planning permission in 2011 for 5 Sundays per year,

conditions had been imposed to restrict the opening hours from 10.00 a.m. to 4.00

p.m. to ensure that there were no deliveries. The provision of a car parking strategy,

to include the use of car park attendants, had also been required. If permission was

granted for the current application, identical conditions were proposed. The

Committee was advised that whilst the Parish of St. Helier had objected to the 2011

application, no such objection had been received in connexion with the current

application, despite the request to increase the number of Sunday trading days from

5 to 9. The Health Protection Unit of the Health and Social Services Department had

raised no objections. With the proposed restrictions in place and given that the

proposal was for only 9 Sundays per year, it was considered that this would not have

an adverse impact on neighbouring amenities, in accordance with Policy GD1.

Consequently, the application was recommended for approval, subject to the

imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report.

8 letters of objection had been received in connexion with the application, together

with a petition containing the signatures of 202 individuals who supported the

application. In addition, 2 individual letters of support had also been received.

The Committee heard from Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier who reminded

members that the application site was situated within close proximity of a

residential area. Concerns which had been expressed previously remained and

residents were worried about the impact the additional Sunday opening would have

on their peace and quiet. Deputy Hilton pointed out that B & Q currently opened at

8.00 am and closed at 8.00 pm, which impacted upon residents. Noise and light

pollution from the business were frequently reported well before the shop opened

and after it closed. Whilst the store had been closed on Good Friday, staff were on

site and residents had experienced noise and disturbance from operations. Deputy

Hilton believed that the other 2 large stores on the site did not open on a Sunday.

She understood that when permission had originally been granted for the B & Q

store, around 1998, a condition of the permit had required the creation of buffers on

the northern and western boundaries, in the form of a wall and planting. The wall

had never been constructed and the planting was ineffective. Traffic congestion in

and around Queens Road was also a significant issue and Sunday was the only day

when the road was quieter. Whilst the Parish of St. Helier had granted the applicant

company the relevant Sunday trading permit, in accordance with the (Shops

Regulation of Opening) (Jersey) Regulations 2011, this did not take into account

the impact of the operation of the business on residents.

28th Meeting

01.06.17

429

The Committee heard from Mr. N. Oomrigar, Manager, B&Q and Mr. J. Guthrie,

Quad Consulting. Mr. Oomrigar advised that the applicant company was absolutely

committed to addressing the concerns which had been addressed by the Committee

when the previous application had been refused. There would be no external

operations on a Sunday and every effort would be made to minimise the impact on

neighbours. It might, however, be necessary to use a fork lift truck in certain

situations. In response to a question from the Chairman, he confirmed that the

applicant company had not specifically engaged with neighbours in the context of

the planning application. The company had received considerable support from

customers in respect of Sunday trading and, from a business perspective, was

operating in a market where competition from online retailers was growing. Mr.

Oomrigar was unable to confirm which particular Sundays it was intended to open.

He went on to add that the other 2 retailers on the site did open on certain Sundays,

as detailed on their respective web sites and it was possible that there would be

occasions when all 3 shops were open on a Sunday. In response to a suggestion from

a member that part of the car park, which was nearest to residential development,

could be closed off on Sundays when the shop was open, Mr. Guthrie stated that this

could be addressed via the car parking strategy required by one of the proposed

conditions.

Having considered the application, the Committee was keen to establish whether all

of the conditions on the original permit for the B & Q store had been implemented;

specifically the condition which Deputy Hilton believed required the construction of

a wall which would act as a buffer. Consequently, consideration of the application

was deferred pending receipt of this information.

On a related matter, the Chairman pointed out that Good Friday counted as a Sunday

in the context of the Shops (Regulation of Opening) (Jersey) Regulations 2011. The

Regulations set out the 3 types of Sunday Trading Permits, as follows –

General Permit – shops with retail sales area less than 700 square metres were

permitted to open on any Sunday throughout the year and on Good Friday,

Liberation Day and 26th December;

Single Permit – shops with a retail sales area which exceeded 700 square metres

were permitted to open on 5 Sundays (or Good Friday or Liberation Day)

throughout the year;

Blanket Permit – every shop within the Parish, regardless of the size of the

retail sales area was permitted to open on certain ‘special occasions’ as

determined by the Minister for Economic Development, for example, the Fête

de Noué.

The Chairman stated that, even if the shop did not trade on Good Friday, it appeared

that on site operations caused some disturbance and she asked whether it was

possible to require a policy statement from the applicant company to prevent this

from happening in future. Mr. A. Townsend, Principal Planner advised that this issue

might be best addressed via the Statutory Nuisance legislation as opposed to the

planning process.

Les Petits

Canons and

Field No.

1391, La

Grande Route

de St. Jean,

Trinity:

proposed

A4. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A10 of 8th December 2016,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed various works

at the property known as Les Petits Canons and Field No. 1391, La Grande Route

de St. Jean, Trinity, as follows –

conversion of existing outbuilding to create 5 self-catering units (to include

roof lights);

430

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

conversion of

outbuilding to

create self-

catering

accommodat-

ion/alterations

to main house/

extension of

cottage/change

of use of field

to domestic

curtilage.

477/5/2(747)

P/2016/1398

alterations to existing main house to form an additional 2 bedroom unit of

accommodation;

extension to roof of existing cottage to form a one bedroom unit of

accommodation;

change of use of part of Field No. 1391 to domestic curtilage to create a car

parking area;

widening of existing vehicular access off La Grande Route de St. Jean;

creation of a pedestrian passing place adjacent to the existing public footpath

to the north of the main vehicular access.

The Committee had visited the site on 30th May 2017.

Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity, Vice-Chairman did not participate in the

determination of this application.

The Committee noted that whilst the scheme had generated only one letter of

objection, the applicant was a sitting States member and a member of the Planning

Committee. Consequently, the Committee was required to determine the application.

One letter supporting the scheme had also been received.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was located in the Green Zone and was a potential Grade 3 Listed Building.

Policies SP1, SP2, SP4, SP5, SP6 and SP7, GD1, GD7, GD8, NE2, NE7, HE1, BE6,

E1, ERE1, ERE4, EVE1 and H10, TT4, LWM2, LWM3 and WM1 of the 2011

Island Plan were relevant to the application.

The Committee recalled that a previous application for a similar scheme had been

refused on the grounds that a number of detailed factors had not been addressed.

Both the internal and external works to the historic buildings and the creation of a

driveway and car parking area in the field to the north, had been considered to be

harmful. Additional information was also required regarding the structure of the

buildings and the potential ecological impacts. In addition, the creation of a new

dwelling on the application site was not supported by the Island Plan Policies, and

concerns existed with regard to highway safety. Consequently, the application had

been refused on the grounds it was contrary to Policies SP1, SP4, SP7, GD1, GD7,

BE6 and HE1, NE7, EVE1, NE2 of the 2011 Island Plan. The Committee had not

been opposed to the principle of self-catering accommodation on the site, but was

extremely concerned about the proposed change of use of Field No. 1391 to domestic

curtilage to create a new access driveway and car parking/turning area. With regard

to the proposed new unit within the main house, the Committee had agreed that it

would wish to receive firm evidence of the previous existence of a second unit. The

Committee had made no commitments in terms of the number of self-catering units

proposed, but noted that the number of units was directly related to the number of

new openings which would have to be created in the barn.

The Committee noted that since the previous refusal the applicant and his agent had

worked with the Department in order to secure a scheme with respected both the

historic integrity of the existing buildings and provided suitable access

arrangements. In this context, it was noted that the current proposal introduced roof

lights as opposed to dormers to the prominent southern elevation of the barn and

utilised the existing access off La Grande Route de St. John. As a consequence, the

scheme was considered to be acceptable and was recommended for approval, subject

to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report.

28th Meeting

01.06.17

431

The proposed conversion of the existing outbuilding to create self-catering

accommodation involved the creation of 2 x 2 bedroomed units and 3 x 3 bedroomed

units over three floors of accommodation. In order to facilitate the conversion, 5 roof

lights were proposed on the northern elevation and 5 on the southern elevation of

the barn. In addition, a small number of other new window and door openings were

proposed in the existing walls of the aforementioned elevations. The alterations to

the main house to form an additional 2 bedroom unit of accommodation would

involve the sub-division of part of the existing main house to provide a separate 2

bedroom unit of accommodation. Internal door openings would be blocked up and

an existing door opening which had been blocked off would be re-used. The

applicant had previously advised that the main house had originally been sub-

divided and the Committee had seen evidence of a doorway which had been blocked

off in the main house during the site visit. The change of use of a portion of the

southern section of Field No. 1391 to create a hoggin car park was also proposed

and the Committee noted that this field had historically been used as domestic

curtilage for an adjoining cottage. The widening of the existing vehicular access

would be achieved by rebuilding/re-aligning a section of the existing granite wall.

This negated the need to create a new access across Field No. 1391. In addition, a

ramped access would be provided from the central driveway area in front of the main

house (directly adjacent to the access) to provide vehicular access to the proposed

new car parking area. The creation of a pedestrian passing place measuring 2.5

metres would be achieved by cutting back a grass bank and ceding the land to the

public.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. R.J. Rondel, who advised that the

scheme had been amended based on officer advice and was much improved as a

result. He reminded the Committee that there was considerable support for the

scheme from neighbours. Turning his attention to the proposed conditions set out

in the officer report, Mr. Rondel asked, if the Committee was minded to approve

the application, whether consideration could be given to permitting the widening of

the entrance prior to the commencement of other works on site. He also asked

whether the Committee would consider extending the life of the permit by 2 years,

taking it from 3 years to 5 years. Finally, Mr. Rondel queried the requirement for

the maintenance of a register of the names and addresses of all persons occupying

the self-catering units.

The Committee, having considered the application and all of the material planning

considerations, unanimously approved the application, subject to the imposition of

certain conditions detailed within the officer report. In doing so the Committee

agreed that works on widening the entrance could be commenced immediately and

that the conditions set out in the officer report should be amended to reflect this

decision. It was recognised that extending the life of the permit would not be

necessary as it would become ‘live’, and not time restricted, as soon as work

commenced on site. In addition, the applicant was assured that the register of names

and addresses of persons occupying the self-catering units merely aimed to ensure

that the units were not occupied on a permanent basis. This was a relatively new

requirement and allowed a level of control over occupancy. Whilst the applicant

would not be required to physically submit the register, it must be available to the

Department should access be requested. Finally, the Committee agreed that, rather

than creating a passing place to the north of the access and ceding this land to the

public via a Planning Obligation Agreement (POA), an additional condition should

be attached to the permit requiring the applicant to widen the entire section of the

footpath. Consequently, there would be no requirement for a POA.

In concluding the Chairman acknowledged the benefits which were derived when

applicants worked with the Department on schemes.

432

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

Cranworth

Apartments,

La Vallee des

Vaux, St.

Helier:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

477/5/1(620)

P/2016/1350

A5. The Committee considered a report in connexion with an application which

proposed the demolition and redevelopment of Cranworth Apartments, La Vallee

des Vaux, St. Helier to provide 5 x 2 bedroom and 7 x 3 bedroom units of residential

accommodation with basement car parking and landscaping. The Committee had

visited the site on 30th May 2017.

A site plan, drawings and a model were displayed. The Committee noted that the

application site was located in the Built-Up Area, the Green Backdrop Zone and the

Green Zone. Policies SP1 - SP7, GD1, GD7, GD8, BE3, NE1, NE7, H4, H6, EVE1

and H10, TT4, LWM2, LWM3 and WM1 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to

the application.

The Committee was advised that the application site comprised a building set back

from the road frontage behind a high roadside wall. The building had been

significantly altered to provide 9 units of accommodation. An outbuilding located to

the south-west corner of the site had also been converted to provide a residential

unit. A courtyard area located to the rear was used for car parking and an amenity

area had been created at a higher level to the west on the escarpment slopes. The

retaining walls of the courtyard and amenity area were a dominant internal feature

of the site. The immediate character of the area was residential. Cranworth and its

curtilage were part of a ribbon of buildings stretching along the western edge of

Vallee des Vaux, which extended westwards to make the best use of the available

space below the escarpment. The scheme proposed the demolition of the existing

building and its replacement with a new 2 storey building fronting the roadside with

a roof terrace. The proposed new building would be set at a lower level than the

existing building, except in the area adjoining the property known as The Spinney,

to the south, where it would be taller. The proposed new building was lower in height

than both the Spinney Apartments to the south and Cranworth Court to the north. To

the west, the building would be 3 storeys high and had been located as far west as

was possible to maximise the courtyard area, in accordance with the requirements

of the Jersey Architecture Commission, which body had assessed the scheme. The

context of the area was strong linear 2 or 3 storey buildings set either side of the road

and the proposed new buildings had been designed in a similar manner and would

contain a combination of rendered walls and aluminium framed windows. The

scheme was considered to provide an acceptable re-development with a mix of new

residential units within this sustainable location in St Helier. The scheme complied

with the relevant Island Plan policy context and was, therefore, recommended for

approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer

report.

5 letters of representation had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee heard from Ms. S. Crick of No. 1 Cranworth Court, who represented

a number of residents of Cranworth Court and the property known as The Farm. Ms.

Crick advised that the main concerns related to –

the proposals to develop in the Green Zone and to construct a unit on

what was currently amenity space;

the loss of natural light – it did not appear that a sun study, which had

been requested, had been undertaken;

the impact arising from the scale of the proposed development;

the accuracy of the model;

the vantage point from which some of the photographs submitted by

the applicant had been taken (it was believed that the images did not

provide a true picture of the impact on privacy);

28th Meeting

01.06.17

433

the increase in occupancy;

prejudice to privacy arising from the projection of unit Nos. 4 and 5 on the

roadside block (contrary to statements in the Department’s report, it was

believed that the balconies would protrude well beyond the end of Cranworth

Court);

noise from the proposed roof gardens;

the lack of consultation with residents of neighbouring properties;

the location of the bin store and odours from the same;

the practicality of the arrangements for refuse collection;

the intensification of traffic and the impact on road safety; and,

whether adequate visibility splays could be achieved.

Ms. Crick concluded by requesting that the applicant be required to enter into

consultation with residents on the scheme prior to its determination.

The Committee heard from Mr. P. Gardiner of the property known as Witsend, who

advised that his property shared a common boundary with the application site. Mr.

Gardener concurred with much of what Ms. Crick had said and added that he too

believed that the proposed scheme would result in the overdevelopment of the site.

He also expressed concern about the impact of the development on the Green

Backdrop Zone.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mr. J. Carney, who advised that

the application had been submitted in the Autumn of 2016 and there had been

extensive consultation with the Department on the scheme. Responses to all

representations had also been submitted. It was noted that the applicant had

originally wished to construct more units on the site but the scheme had

subsequently been revised. The design of each unit was subtly different and each

had been designed with the lifetime homes design criteria in mind. This criteria was

used as a model for building accessible and adaptable homes. A large secure private

courtyard was proposed, as suggested by the Architecture commission and the rear

units had been moved south and the front units moved forward to achieve this. This

had resulted in proposed unit Nos. 11 and 12 ‘kissing’ a very small part of the Green

Zone, which currently formed part of the domestic curtilage of the property.

Vegetation in this area was very dense at present. Mr. Carney suggested that if the

rooftop gardens were considered to be problematic, these could be omitted. He

pointed out that the proposed new development would be much more energy

efficient than the existing development, in accordance with Policy SP2.

In response to concerns regarding the accuracy of the model, Mr. Carney stated that

he believed it to be ‘a fair reflection of what was shown on the submitted drawings’.

Mr. Carney acknowledged that the balcony on Unit No. 6 would extend beyond

Cranworth Court and he stated variously that this could be pulled back, removed

completely or the screening extended. There was absolutely no desire for the

development to have a negative effect on neighbouring properties. The refuse store

had been relocated following consultation with the Parish of St. Helier and Mr.

Carney pointed out that the sites were separated by a wall and that planting was

proposed. The refuse store would be roofed over and mechanically ventilated. Mr.

Carney believed that it would be possible for a refuse vehicle to stop on a sloping

ramp leading into the basement car park without impeding residents’ access. An

illustration showing a lorry parked on the road had been submitted to specifically

demonstrate why off road car parking was required. In response to a question from

a member regarding the size of the ground floor w.c. and whether it was wide

enough for a wheelchair user, Mr. Carney stated that it was ‘ambulant compliant’.

In response to concerns regarding overlooking, Mr. Carney stated that the units had

been designed so that they looked up the cotil and were orientated away from the

road. It was possible to remove 2 small obscure glazed windows if this was

434

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

considered helpful in the context of privacy. Finally, Mr. Carney did not believe

that the submission of a sun path analysis had been ‘flagged up to the extent that it

was an actual requirement’. In any case, he was convinced that loss of light would

not be an issue and suggested that only the courtyard of the new building would be

affected. There had been no concerns regarding visibility from the Parish and the

visibility splays proposed were appropriate for a road with a speed limit of 30 miles

per hour, albeit that the speed limit was 15 miles per hour on La Vallee des Vaux.

The Committee, having considered the application, unanimously refused

permission, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds of

overdevelopment and the resultant impact on neighbouring properties. The

Committee was particularly concerned about the overbearing impact of proposed

unit No. 6; the prospect of development in the Green Zone; and, the adverse effect

on the Green Backdrop Zone and the wider area. The Committee was not convinced

that the homes had been designed with the Lifelong Homes criteria in mind and some

members expressed disappointment with the design and the level of car parking

proposed. It was noted that the application would be re-presented at the next meeting

on 29th June 2017, for the purpose of formally setting out the reasons for refusal.

La Fougere, Le

Mont de Rozel,

St. Martin:

proposed

demolition and

redevelopment.

477/5/2(746)

P/2016/1230

A6. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A7 of 8th December 2016,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the demolition

of the property known as La Fougere, Le Mont de Rozel, St. Martin and its

replacement with a new 2 bedroom dwelling. It was also proposed to alter the

vehicular access on to Le Mont de Rozel and connect to the main foul sewer network.

The Committee had visited the site on 30th May 2016.

Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier did not participate in the determination of this

application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was located in the Coastal National Park and that Policies GD1, GD7, NE4, NE6

and LWM2 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant to the application.

The Committee recalled that it had refused permission for a previous scheme on the

basis that it had been concerned about the apparent scale, visual impact and

prominence of the proposed new dwelling in this sensitive location, particularly

when looking back from Rozel harbour. Whilst members had not been opposed to

the demolition of the existing dwelling, the proposed design of the new dwelling or

the use of glazing, it had been considered that the scheme would have been harmful

to the landscape character because of its perceived increased impact from distant

public vantage points.

It was noted that the applicants had sought to address the Committee’s concerns by

revising the scheme. The principle change was a re-designed roof profile. Whereas

previously a pair of mono-pitched roofs had been proposed, the current scheme

showed a shallow hipped roof with overhanging eaves. This represented a more

conventional approach, albeit that the overall design of the house remained distinctly

contemporary. It was considered that the lowering of the eaves level assisted in

helping the scheme to ‘settle-in’ to the site to a greater extent than before. Other

alterations included a reduction in the extent of glazing to the north (seaward) façade,

and a change in the external materials, omitting the white render, and replacing it

with additional timber cladding, offering a more muted and natural appearance.

Finally, the north façade of the dwelling had been squared-off where previously this

had incorporated an angled projection.

28th Meeting

01.06.17

435

The Committee recalled that La Fougere was located on the seaward side of Le Mont

de Rozel, a short distance from Rozel Harbour. The application site included a

substantial area of land which dropped down from the road towards the sea to the

north. The existing building was a rather dated and architecturally undistinguished

1960’s property. There were numerous problems with the structure and fabric of the

building. The application proposed its demolition and replacement with a new

contemporary dwelling of a similar scale and constructed on broadly the same

footprint. The overall ridge height of the new dwelling would be approximately the

same as the existing house, although it would be slightly lower overall when the

height of the existing chimney was taken into account. Glass, hardwood timber

cladding and stone-slip cladding were proposed and these particular materials were

considered to be appropriate given the site’s coastal location. It was believed that

the palette of materials chosen would help the scheme to blend in with the

surrounding natural environment more successfully than the existing building. In the

department’s view, the architectural design was highly accomplished and would

result in an elegant, contemporary new dwelling.

The site was located within the Coastal National Park, wherein there was a strong

presumption against new development. However, Policy NE6 allowed for the

replacement of existing dwellings. It was acknowledged that the new building would

be slightly larger than the existing dwelling (mainly on account of the relocated and

enlarged double garage). Whilst this meant that the scheme was not strictly in

accordance with Policy NE6, the overall landscape impact of the new dwelling

would be no greater than at present, and redevelopment of the site offered a range of

additional benefits, including significant architectural improvement and

environmental performance; an improved relationship with the immediate

neighbour; connection to mains drains and improvements to highway safety arising

from the proposed alterations to the vehicular access. Accordingly, the increase in

size was considered to be justified, although it was recommended that, if permission

was granted, Permitted Development rights be restricted in order to prevent any

further extension within this sensitive zone. The application was recommended for

approval on this basis, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within

the officer report.

No objections had been received in connexion with the application. 2 letters of

support had been received after the publication of the agenda and these had been

sent to members under separate cover.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mr. C. Dunne, who advised that it

was believed that the re-design of the roof and the replacement of render with timber

would reduce the impact of the development.

The Committee, having considered the application, accordingly approved the same,

subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report.

La Pepiniere

Farm, La Rue

de Crabbé, St.

Mary:

proposed

replacement of

agricultural

shed.

477/5/3(744)

P/2017/0275

A7. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A5 of 22nd September 2016,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the

replacement of an existing agricultural shed with a new agricultural shed at La

Pepiniere Farm, La Rue de Crabbé, St. Mary. It was proposed to retain the existing

foundations and blockwork walls. The Committee had visited the application site on

30th May 2017.

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary, Chairman did not participate in the

determination of this application. Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity, Vice-

Chairman acted as Chairman for the duration of this item.

436

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was located in the Green Zone and Policies, NE7, GD1 and 7 of the 2011 Island

Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee recalled that La Pepiniere was a former dairy farm located in rural

St Mary, largely surrounded by open agricultural land. The case officer advised that

the site had been redundant to the dairy industry for a number of years since the

previous owner had disposed of his dairy herd as part of a States of Jersey initiative

to reduce levels of milk production in the Island.

The Committee noted that the site contained a series of agricultural barns and other

structures, together with two residential dwellings (the main house and an

agricultural worker’s dwelling). The application site also included the two northern-

most barns. Vehicular access was from the north onto Rue des Touettes.

The Committee was informed that, since the farm had come out of the agricultural

industry, there had been three unsuccessful applications to redevelop the site for

housing. In addition, the Committee had been minded to refuse an application which

had been submitted by the Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

(JSPCA) for the change the use of the site to create a new dog kennelling facility.

Prior to the formal decision confirmation process, the JSPCA had taken the decision

to withdraw the application.

The current application related to the southern part of La Pepiniere Farm;

specifically the southern-most agricultural barn/shed on the site. The application

proposed the partial demolition and rebuilding of this shed. The applicant was a bona

fide agriculturalist and the proposed new shed would continue to be used primarily

for the keeping of farm animals. The applicant had sought professional advice in

respect of the structural condition of the existing shed and had been advised that

parts of the structure required removal. The intention was to replace these elements

with a new structure which would be built to modern standards. The existing

foundations and external blockwork walls would be retained and re-used and the

new shed would occupy the same footprint as the existing shed. It would be re-built

to broadly the same size and scale, albeit with a slight increase in height of around

750 millimetres along one roof plane. Externally, the shed would be re-clad in a

composite profiled panel (similar to that which existed).

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the objections which had been received (10

in total). The primary concern appeared to be that the use of the site might intensify

in time, or that there might be a change of use. It was noted that references to a

change of use within the submitted application documentation were erroneous and

had led to a misunderstanding.

The Department did not consider that the application would unreasonably harm

neighbouring amenities and was in accordance with the relevant Island Plan Policies,

in particular, the Green Zone Policy NE7. Consequently, the application was

recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed

within the officer report.

The Committee heard from Mr. J. Drew, who owned land on the northern side of

Rue des Touettes. Mr. Drew advised that he was an honorary policy officer with

considerable traffic duty experience.

Mr. Drew confirmed that whilst he had read the report prepared by the Department

and had noted that no change of use or intensification of use was proposed, this was

at odds with information presented to parishioners previously which related to the

28th Meeting

01.06.17

437

creation of a ‘therapeutic care farm’ on the site. He sought clarification on this issue.

In response, the Director, Development Control advised that although the

Department had been made aware of proposals for a care farm on the site, this did

not form part of the application under consideration. The application before the

Committee proposed the partial re-building of an existing agricultural building. It

was Mr. Drew’s understanding that it was still intended to establish a therapeutic

care farm facility on the site and he believed that some work had commenced in

this connexion. Mr. Drew asked the Committee to look at the images of the southern

elevation of the shed which he stated could not, by any stretch of the imagination,

be considered to look like a normal agricultural barn. He contended that the

structure looked more like a residential building. In concluding, Mr. Drew reminded

the Committee that, during its consideration of the JSPCA application, members

had indicated that a holistic approach to development proposals for the site was

preferable to a piecemeal approach. He argued that the current application should

not, therefore, be considered in insolation.

The Committee heard from Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary, Chairman, who

referred the Committee to a written representation she had made on behalf of the

Parish of St. Mary. She stated that concerns existed around intensification of use

and the impact on the Green Lane network. The Connétable asked whether it was

intended to lease storage on the site or whether this would be used solely by the

applicant. Whilst she had not been present during the Committee’s determination

of the JSPCA application, the Connétable also understood that it had been implied

that proposals for the site should be considered as a whole. The Connetable

concurred with Mr. Drew’s view that the structure did not appear to look like an

agricultural shed.

The Committee heard from Ms. S. Heppolette, who was also concerned about traffic

intensification and the impact on the surrounding road network. Ms. Heppolette

also believed that the application should not be determined in isolation of proposals

for the remainder of the site.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mr. E. Smith, who advised that

references to a change of use in the submitted application documentation were

erroneous and had occurred as a result of an administrative oversight. He too

believed that any future proposals from the JSPCA and the therapeutic care farm

scheme should be considered in tandem. However, the current application merely

proposed the partial re-building of an existing agricultural shed. Whilst it was

accepted that there would be more windows than was usual in an agricultural shed,

this was a deliberate attempt to make the building more aesthetically pleasing. Mr.

Smith stated that some windows could be removed if the Committee felt this was

necessary. The scheme would not result in an increase in traffic and there would be

no workers travelling to and from the site. The mezzanine storage level would be

used solely by the applicant.

Having considered the application, the Committee approved the same, subject to

the imposition of the conditions set out in the officer report. There was some

discussion around the possibility of attaching an additional condition to the permit

preventing the sub-letting of the shed. However, based on advice received from the

Director, Development Control, the Committee decided against this.

The Beach

House Bar and

Restaurant, Le

Mont du

Ouaisné, St.

Brelade:

A8. The Committee, with reference to Minute No. A11 of 21st May 2015, of the

former Planning Applications Committee, considered a report in connexion with an

application which proposed various alterations to the approved scheme for the

demolition of the Beach House Bar and Restaurant, Le Mont du Ouaisné, St. Brelade

and its replacement with a new dwelling. The Committee had visited the site on 30th

May 2017.

438

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

demolition of

restaurant and

construction of

replacement

dwelling

(revised plans).

477/5/3 (880)

P/2017/0318

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Panel recalled that the application site

was located within the Costal National Park and that Policies NE6, GD1, GD7 and

E1 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee recalled that in 2013, the former Planning Applications Panel had

granted permission for the demolition of the existing restaurant and its replacement

with a dwelling with basement car parking. The approved dwelling was to be built

on broadly the same footprint as the existing restaurant, albeit with an additional

storey of accommodation. A subsequent application in 2015, had proposed a number

of alterations to the approved scheme, including rotating the footprint in order to

improve the outlook, reconfiguring the internal space and corresponding

amendments to the external elevations and increasing the internal floor area and

height (by less than half a metre). The former Planning Applications Committee had

refused this application on the grounds of concerns regarding the proposed increase

in habitable floor space in the Coastal National Park and the increase in the height

of the building in this sensitive location.

The current scheme sought to address the concerns raised in relation to the 2015

scheme and proposed a number of alterations to the approved scheme, including

rotating the building’s footprint in order to improve its coastal outlook,

reconfiguring the internal space and corresponding amendments to the external

elevations. Whilst there would still be some increase in the overall floor area, this

increase was now confined to the basement car park where the intention was to

incorporate those areas which would otherwise have formed a void between the

basement wall (as approved) and the back of the sea wall. There were no external

visual implications arising from this particular change and there would be no

increase in floor area across the two upper levels of the dwelling (taken together)

and the height of the dwelling would remain as approved. In the Department’s view,

the changes proposed were proportionate when compared with the approved scheme.

They would not lead to any increase in perceived scale and mass, or result in any

greater level of landscape impact, beyond that of the approved scheme. Further, there

would be no increase in occupancy. The Department did not believe that the

proposed alterations would unreasonably harm neighbouring amenities and,

compared with the approved scheme, the effect would be neutral. Consequently, the

application was recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain

conditions detailed within the officer report.

14 letters of representation had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee heard from Mrs. R. Curzon, who advised that whilst she had no

objection to the scheme approved in 2013, she had considered the 2015 scheme to

be too large. She referred to what she believed was a public right of way between

the sea wall and the application site and asked if public access would be maintained.

She was also concerned about the impact the construction of the underground

garage might have on the sea wall. In response to the former, the Director,

Development Control pointed out that the area Mrs. Curzon referred to appeared to

have been partially built over. In any event, it was for the landowner to address this

issue.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Ms. M. Thompson and her agent, Mr. A.

Morris. Mr. Morris advised that his client had recently purchased the site and, on

reviewing the approved drawings, wished to make amendments to the scheme.

Concerns regarding the scheme which had been refused in 2015 were understood.

The current scheme proposing ‘twisting’ the building, ‘tweaking’ the elevations and

taking advantage of the void area in the basement. Every effort had made to ensure

that a good relationship with adjoining properties was achieved and that there was

28th Meeting

01.06.17

439

no prejudice to privacy. In terms of impact on the landscape character, there would

be very little difference between the approved and the proposed scheme. With

regard to the question of a public right of way through the site, it was noted that

whilst there was a gate at the top and the path had been used by members of the

public in the past, there was no formal right of way. The States of Jersey had been

consulted with regard to building up against the sea wall and it was noted that there

would be no relief or offset towards the boundary. In terms of the encroachment on

parish land by the previous owner, the Parish of St. Brelade had agreed that the

applicant should enter into a Deed of Arrangement with the Parish to clarify and

define the boundary.

Ms. Thompson added that the cost of the project was likely to be in the region of

£7 - £8 million so it was certainly not in her interests for any damage to occur to

the sea wall.

Having considered the application, the Committee accordingly approved the same,

subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report.

Field No. 287,

La Rue de la

Commune, St.

Peter:

proposed

residential care

home/

alterations to

access.

477/5/3(387)

PP/2017/0048

A9. The Committee received a report in connexion with an outline planning

application which had been refused by the Department under delegated authority

and which sought permission for the construction of a 20 unit residential care home

on Field No. 287, La Rue de la Commune, St. Peter. The Committee had visited the

site on 30th May 2017.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Green Zone and that Policies SP1, SP4, GD1, GD7, GD8,

NE7, ERE1, SCO2, LWM2 and LWM3 of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular

relevance.

The Committee noted that the application site was a 1.3 vergée agricultural field

which formed part of the Green Zone. The site sat alongside Lakeside care home

and was a short distance from the airport. Previous attempts to redevelop the site, or

have it re-zoned, had been unsuccessful.

The current application proposed the construction of a 2-storey care home within the

field and had been refused on the grounds that the construction of a significant new

care home development on what was presently an undeveloped greenfield site within

the Green Zone was contrary to the strategic aims and objectives of the 2011 Island

Plan. The application failed to satisfy the requirements of Policies SP1, NE7 and

SCO2. The applicant company believed that there was a very real and urgent need

for this type of development and was asking the Committee to make an exception to

the Green Zone Policy to permit the scheme. The Department took no view on the

need for the type of facility proposed but was concerned with the principle of a

development of this nature in the Green Zone. Policy SCO2 (Healthcare facilities)

stated that new healthcare facilities should be developed either within the Built-Up

Area or within the grounds of existing healthcare facilities. Where proposals related

to sites outside of these areas then it must first be demonstrated that there were no

other suitable sites within the grounds of existing healthcare facilities or in the Built-

up Area. Thereafter, the proposed development site would have to be re-zoned for

the intended purpose.

It was recommended that the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

One letter of objection and 2 letters of support had been received in connexion with

the application.

440

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mrs. S. Steedman and a

representative of L.V. Group Limited, which company would manage and operate

the proposed facility. The Committee was advised that there was an urgent need for

nursing home beds and demand was highly likely to continue well into the future as

life expectancy increased together with long term care needs.

Mrs. Steedman advised that dementia was now the most common cause of death

and it was well known that risk increased with age. In addition to the medical costs

associated with the disease, the societal costs were also great. There was an urgent

need for more nursing beds in the Island and Mrs. Steedman referred to a letter from

the Minister for Health and Social Services in which he had stated that dementia

nursing facilities were currently full to capacity and the need to increase the number

of nursing beds was urgent. Improving care for older adults was a key strategic

priority, as outlined in P.82/2012 – ‘Health and Social Services: A new way

forward’. Whilst it was accepted that the proposals were contrary to the Green Zone

Policy presumption, given the need for nursing beds and the fact that a care provider

was prepared to operate the new facility, Mrs. Steedman felt that sufficient

justification existed for making an exception to policy. She added that the strategic

policies of the Island Plan had been formulated in 2011, and the situation had

changed considerably since then. The application site was well screened from

public view and the new care home would be adjacent to an existing medical

facility. Mrs. Steedman did not believe that the application site was in what could

be described as a sensitive location. She urged the Committee to approve the

application.

The Committee expressed the view that whilst the need for facilities such as that

proposed was not disputed, the application site was an undeveloped greenfield site

situated in the Green Zone. Consequently, the application was clearly contrary to the

Green Zone Policy. The Committee was also mindful of the provisions of Policy

SCO2 (Healthcare facilities) and the need to demonstrate that there were no other

suitable sites in the Built-up Area. The Committee concluded that the application

could not be supported on policy grounds and maintained refusal for all of the

reasons set out above.

Rozel

Camping site,

La Route de

Rozel, St.

Martin (RFR):

proposed staff

accommodat-

ion.

477/5/2(760)

P/2017/0076

A10. The Committee received a report in connexion with an application which had

been refused by the Department under delegated authority and which sought

permission for the construction of one 3 bedroom staff accommodation unit at Rozel

Camping site, La Route de Rozel, St. Martin. The Committee had visited the site on

30th May 2017.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Green Zone and that Policies SP1, SP4, SP5, SP7 GD1, GD7,

NE7 and H9 of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee was advised that the application site formed part of the wider land

holding of Rozel Camp Site. The area in question was located at the eastern end of

a cluster of buildings, directly alongside a large portal-framed shed which was used

commercially as part of the camp site. The land was currently undeveloped and

comprised an allotment and a glasshouse. The Department had provided pre-

application advice on the principle of development and had indicated that an

additional unit of accommodation associated with the management of the campsite

could be justified. However, the scheme which had been tabled for consideration at

the pre-application stage had been far more modest in scale than the scheme which

had subsequently been submitted. The submitted scheme was substantially larger,

with a significantly greater landscape impact than had been envisaged. Moreover, a

28th Meeting

01.06.17

441

substantial residential curtilage was also to be established. The applicants had

explained that the new dwelling had been designed to accommodate the needs of

their wider family. Whilst the personal circumstances of the family were

acknowledged, the Department took the view that the size of the scheme was

difficult to justify on the grounds of the operational needs of the business – which

was the policy test (Policy H9 in conjunction with Policy NE7). It was considered

that the proposed dwelling would have an unreasonable impact on the rural character

of the area and it was felt that the design could be improved. Consequently, the

application had been refused on the grounds that it was contrary to Policies SP4,

GD1, NE7 and H 9 of the 2011 Island Plan. It was recommended that the Committee

maintain refusal of the application.

2 representations had been received in connexion with the application. An additional

6 representations had been received after the publication of the agenda and members

had received these under separate cover.

The Committee heard from the applicants, Mrs. P. Toudic and her father, Mr. D.

Germain, their agent, Mrs. S. Steedman and a representative of Visit Jersey.

The Committee was advised that Visit Jersey was very supportive of this family run

camp site. The proposed new dwelling was necessary to meet the operational needs

of the business. The camp site was currently very successful but had almost closed

a decade ago. With hard work and investment the site was now flourishing and had

received over 3,000 visitors for the third year running in 2016. The key ingredient

was personal service and the camp site was the only one in the Channel Islands to

have obtained prestigious Gold Pennants from the AA for 2 years running. Mrs.

Toudic and Mr. Germain each had different roles in the running of the camp site and

this meant that they both had to be on the camp site at the same time. From May to

September the camp site was extremely busy and both Mr. Germain and Mrs. Toudic

worked long hours. It was intended that Mrs. Toudic and her family would move

into the property currently occupied by her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Germain, who

would, in turn, move into the proposed new dwelling.

The Committee heard from Mrs Toudic who, together with her father, Mr. Germain,

ran the campsite. She stressed just how essential it was for her to live on site. In

recent years the camp site had become very successful and significant investment

had been made in the facilities. Many Jersey businesses benefitted from the

operation of the camp site, with guests visiting local attractions and produce and

plants being purchased locally. Mrs. Toudic advised that she and her husband had a

young family and living off site presented major logistical difficulties. Mrs Toudic’s

husband’s job involved a considerable amount of travelling so she had limited child

care support when he was away. It was not possible for one person to work on the

camp site on their own during the busiest periods. Whilst Mr. Germain had no

intention of retiring at present, the family wished to ‘future proof’ the business for

when that time did come. The Committee was advised that the height of the proposed

new dwelling could be reduced and trees planted to provide additional screening if

necessary. Mrs. Toudic concluded by stating that if permission was not granted the

family would seriously have to consider the future of the business. She urged the

Committee to grant permission.

The Committee heard from Mr. Germain, who explained what his duties at the camp

site involved. It was not uncommon for 30 – 35 families to arrive at the same time

and Mr. Germain’s day often started at 6.00 am and did not finish until 10.00 pm.

The camp site was very popular and this was borne out by repeat business and

positive reviews on Trip Advisor. The applicants had looked at the possibility of

using other areas/buildings on the camp site for the purpose of building a new

dwelling but all of the existing structures were essential to the operation of the

442

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

business. The proposed new dwelling had been designed with the family’s specific

needs in mind. Mr. Germain stated that, together with his brother, he had started the

business 43 years ago and he expressed just how disappointed he would be if the

camp site ceased to operate. He spoke most passionately and with a great deal of

emotion about just how much the business meant to the family.

The Committee heard from Mrs. Steedman, who referred the Committee to Policies

H9 and NE7 and the tests set out therein. She reminded the Committee that the

application was supported by the Economic Development, Tourism, Sport and

Culture Department, Jersey Business and Visit Jersey. It was not possible to

construct the proposed new dwelling in the Built-Up Area and all of the existing

buildings on the site had been considered – some were not wholly owned by

applicant. The proposed dwelling would be located at the end of the existing building

group and would be set well back from road. The proposed dwelling was no larger

than the existing house and was smaller than some other dwellings which had been

approved in the vicinity. Mrs. Steedman explained that scheme considered at the

pre-application stage did not meet the specific needs of the family. The proposed

new dwelling would complement the landscape character and the scheme also

proposed landscape improvements. Mrs. Steedman did not believe that serious harm

to the landscape would arise as a result of the proposed development. She concluded

by stating that there was a real chance that if permission was not granted the camp

site would close.

The Committee congratulated the applicants on the operation of what was obviously

a successful business which was an excellent addition to the tourism offering. In

terms of the application itself, the Committee, with the exception of Deputy S. M.

Wickenden of St. Helier, concluded that it could not support the scheme as

presented. Consequently, the application was refused for all of the reasons set out

above. In arriving at this decision the Committee urged the applicants to work with

the Department on alternative proposals.

No. 4 Augres

Farm, La Rue

du Moulin de

Bas, Trinity:

proposed

construction of

conservatory

(RFR).

477/5/2(51)

P/2016/0923

A11. The Committee received a report in connexion with an application which had

been refused by the Department under delegated authority and which sought

permission for the construction of a timber conservatory to the south west elevation

of No. 4 Augres Farm, La Rue du Moulin de Bas, Trinity. The Committee had visited

the site on 30th May 2017.

Connétable P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity, Vice-Chairman did not participate in the

determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Green Zone and was a Potential Grade 2 Listed Building.

Policies GD1, GD7, NE7 and HE1 of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular

relevance.

The Committee noted that the above application had been refused on the grounds

that the proposed conservatory was not considered to be in keeping with the

property, which was a converted barn. The Committee was advised that an

‘orangery’ style structure with a solid roof was proposed. It was recommended that

the Committee maintain refusal of the application.

On a related matter, the Committee was informed that a delay in bringing the

application before the Committee had occurred as a result of a dispute with regard

to the Listing of the building, which process was in train at the same time as the

application had been refused. The Committee was advised that, on 25th April 2017,

Augres Farm as a whole had been designated a Grade 2 Listed Building. Whilst

28th Meeting

01.06.17

443

individual dwellings had been created by converting the barn, the historic farm group

remained. It was possible that the Grade 2 Listing could have resulted from the

existence of the ‘very complete 3-cell house circa. 1400 with 17th century wing’.

However, Jersey Heritage Trust remained of the view that the special interest of the

collective historic farm group should be treated as one entity and the new Listing

schedule acknowledged the lack of interior interest in the case of the converted

outbuildings. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the Department would have

reached the same conclusion with regard to the application had the building been

Listed at Grade 4. It was recommended that the Committee maintain refusal of the

application.

The Committee heard from Ms. T. Ingle, Principal Historic Environment Officer

who confirmed that whilst the outbuildings had been converted and their value was

in the external appearance and the contribution to the historic farm group, the

proposed conservatory was not considered to be in keeping or appropriate from a

heritage perspective.

The Committee heard from the applicant’s agent, Mr. A. Gibb, who made reference

to the decision to List the entire group at Grade 2 as opposed to Listing the principal

dwelling at Grade 2 and the converted outbuildings at Grade 4. He believed that a

Grade 4 Listing was more appropriate for the converted barn. The scheme proposed

the construction of a modest extension which would be tucked behind a wall. He

argued that the proposed conservatory would not affect the characteristics of

building at all and he felt that the refusal of the application was illogical.

In response to Mr. Gibb’s comments regarding the decision by Jersey Heritage Trust

to List the entire group at Grade 2, Ms. Ingle stated that this was not an unusual

response and the schedule made it clear that only the external appearance of the

outbuildings was included in the Listing.

The Committee, having considered the application, concluded that whilst some form

of extension to the building was possible, more thought had to be given to the

context. Consequently, the application was refused for the reasons set out above.

Mont au Sol,

La Grande

Route des

Mielles, St.

Ouen:

proposed

extension

(RFR).

477/5/3(604)

RP/2016/1544

A12. The Committee received a report in connexion with an application which had

been refused by the Department under delegated authority and which sought

permission for the raising of the roof to create additional habitable space at the

property known as Mont au Sol, La Grande Route des Mielles, St. Ouen. 6 roof-

lights were also proposed together with a balcony to the south-west and north-west

elevations. The Committee had visited the site on 30th May 2017.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Coastal National Park and that Policies NE6, GD1 and GD7

of the 2011 Island Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee noted that Mont au Sol was a low-lying split level property

occupying a roadside plot on La Grande Route des Mielles, within the designated

Coastal National Park (CNP). The application sought permission for the construction

of a reconfigured, raised roof structure with 6 roof lights and a balcony to the south-

west and north-west elevations. The Committee noted that the proposed scheme

sought to revise a scheme approved in July 2009, wherein permission had been

granted to alter and extend the property to the south west and north west to provide

additional accommodation incidental to the existing dwelling house.

It was acknowledged that Policy NE6 did not set an absolute moratorium against

development and the Island Plan recognised the need to provide for the reasonable

expectations of residents in the CNP to improve their homes. However, Policy NE6

444

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

did seek to manage those expectations within what was a fragile environment. The

extension of a dwelling would only be permitted where proposals demonstrated

compliance with the key policy criteria, which focused upon issues of scale, design

and impact upon the landscape character. The works permitted to date were

considered to be subservient in nature to both the site and the landscape. By contrast,

the proposed development, by virtue of the resultant increase in the scale and

massing of the reconfigured roof form, fundamentally changed the characteristics of

the existing dwelling to create a visually dominant built form which would sit

prominently within the open coastal plain. With this failure to adopt a subservient

relationship to the existing building; the inappropriate design relative to the existing

building and its context; and, the perceived sense of harm to landscape character, it

had been concluded that the proposals did not satisfy the CNP Policy, nor deliver

the required standard of design as set out under policies GD1 and GD7.

Consequently, the application had been refused on these grounds. It was

recommended that the Committee maintain refusal.

The Committee heard from the applicant, Mr. N. Walsh and his agent, Mr. I. Alder.

Mr. Alder stated that the proposed development was considered to be reasonable and

suitable in this context. It was noted that since purchasing the property Mr. Walsh

had reviewed the approved scheme and wished to make some amendments. It was

intended to use natural slate on the roof, which Mr. Alder stated necessitated a

steeper pitch (this assertion was challenged by the Vice Chairman). This steeper

pitch would make for a more useable roof space so it was intended to relocate some

of the bedrooms to the roof area. The scheme had been discussed with the

Department and it had been understood that there were no issues with the design

approach. The floor area of the approved scheme was 387 square metres compared

with 433 square metres on the proposed scheme; representing a 12 per cent increase

in floor area. The existing roof pitch was approximately 24 degrees and the proposed

roof pitch would be 35 degrees. There would be no increase in occupancy.

Mr. Walsh advised that when he had purchased the house the low lying nature of the

property and the location had been very appealing. The family had not, therefore,

wished to add another storey to the house to achieve the space required. The house

had been redeveloped in the 1990s and Mr. Walsh saw this as an opportunity to make

further improvements whilst maintaining the low profile.

Having considered the application, the Committee concluded that it could not

support the scheme for all of the reasons set out above and, in particular, the impact

on the landscape and the CNP. Consequently, the application was refused.

Mevanna, La

Rue du Clos

Fallu, St.

Martin:

proposed

change of use

of commercial

storage

building.

(RFR)

477/5/2(761)

P/2016/1893

A13. The Committee received a report in connexion with an application which had

been refused by the Department under delegated authority and which sought

permission for the change of use of a commercial storage building at the property

known as Mevanna, La Rue du Clos Fallu, St. Martin. The Committee had visited

the site on 30th May 2017.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was situated in the Green Zone and that Policies NE7, GD1 and E1 of the 2011

Island Plan were of particular relevance.

The Committee was advised that permission had been granted in 1990 for the

construction of the storage building for the applicant’s gardening business. This

permission had been made personal to the applicant as the Committee of the day had

wished to control the extent of the activity. However, it was noted that the shed had

been leased to a car mechanic for more than 8 years and permission was now being

sought for a change of use from gardening storage to light industry. It was recognised

28th Meeting

01.06.17

445

that as the current tenant had been using the premises for over 8 years, enforcement

action could not be taken. However, the existing unauthorised use did not equate to

planning permission.

The Committee was advised that the car mechanic use was deemed to represent an

intensification of use and was not considered an appropriate and sustainable pattern

of development within the Green Zone. In addition, proposals for the change of use

of an employment building in the countryside were required to demonstrate a

specific requirement for a countryside location under the Green Zone policy. In this

particular case, it was considered that the nature of a car mechanic business bore no

relation to the countryside and its rural economy and would cause harm to the

character and quality of the countryside, contrary to Policy NE7. The storage shed

was also located in the midst of an established residential area and the proposed

change of use to a car mechanic business could result in noise, dust, traffic and other

general disturbance, which could have an adverse impact on the amenities of the

neighbouring residential uses, contrary to Policy GD1. It was recommended that the

Committee maintain refusal of the application.

In response to a question from the Vice Chairman regarding what uses could be

defined as light industrial, the Director, Development Control advised that light

industrial uses in a residential area must be capable of being absorbed into that area

without causing complaint.

One letter of objection had been received during the application period. Subsequent

to the refusal of permission, 2 further letters of objection had also been received, one

from an individual, and another one signed by 7 residents of North Lynn Farm, a

residential estate located to the north east of the shed which shared a communal

driveway with Mevanna.

The Committee heard from Mrs. S. Overland, who stated that whilst neighbours had

objected to the application, there was no desire to make life difficult for the

applicants. However, Mrs. Overland advised that neighbours were concerned that

the proposed change of use could compromise their enjoyment of their homes.

The Committee heard from the applicants, Mr. and Mrs. M. Richardson, who

advised that the current tenant had operated from the shed for the past 8 years

without incident. It was suggested that the term ‘light industry’ was far too broad

and that it might have been more appropriate to seek a change of use to a

workshop/storage facility. However, the case officer confirmed that a car mechanic

use would not fall into this category due to its propensity to cause harm. Mrs.

Richardson felt that concerns from neighbours had arisen as a result of the couple’s

recent decision to sell their property. She explained that the prospective purchaser

owned a small business which he hoped to operate from the site. Mrs. Richardson

concluded by stating that the shed and the property were tied by a corpus fundi

condition. The Director, Development Control advised that the Department was

unable to enforce corpus fundi conditions.

Having considered the application, the Committee, with the exception of Connétable

P.B. Le Sueur of Trinity, Vice-Chairman and Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier,

felt unable to support the application for the reasons set out above. Consequently,

the application was refused.

Samares

Nurseries, La

Grande Route

de St. Clement:

proposed

A14. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A14 of 27th April 2017,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the demolition

of the property known as Cefn and the creation of a residential development on the

Samares Nurseries site, La Grande Route de St. Clement. The scheme proposed the

construction of -

446

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

residential

development.

477/5/2(232)

P/2016/1757

20 No. one bedroom dwellings – social rented tenure

89 No. two bedroom dwellings – social rented tenure

51 No. three bedroom dwellings – social rented tenure

40 No. three bedroom dwellings – first time buyer

The scheme included vehicular access onto La Grande Route de St Clement;

landscaping; car parking, ancillary buildings and a cycle route. The Committee had

visited the site on 25th April 2017.

Deputies J.M. Maçon of St Saviour and S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier were not

present for the determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was located in the Built-Up Area, was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor, a

Primary Route Network and was a designated Category A Affordable Housing Site.

Policies SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP6, SP7, GD1, GD3, GD6, GD7, NE1, BE5, SCO3,

SCO5, H1, H4, H6, TT2, TT3, TT4, TT8, TT9, NR1, NR2, NR3, LWM1, LWM2

and LWM3 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee recalled that the 10.4 acre Samares Nurseries site had been re-zoned

for Category A Affordable Housing, in accordance with Policy H1 of the 2011 Island

Plan. In October 2015, a development brief for the site had been adopted which

established the principle of the site being developed for 180-200 Affordable Housing

units. The application under consideration followed 18 months of pre-application

negotiations, including four rounds of consultation with the Jersey Architecture

Commission. The key matters which had been considered were the number of units;

traffic generation; ecological impact and drainage. It was noted that the scheme had

to be considered in association with the applications detailed below. If permission

was granted the applications would be linked by a Planning Obligation Agreement

(POA) to secure their delivery.

P/2016/1759 – creation of 3 pedestrian/cyclist/emergency vehicle access routes

through to Le Squez via Les Burons, to the west of Samares Nursery.

P/2016/1760 – creation of cycle path from the eastern boundary of the site, across

fields, to Rue de Maupertuis.

P/2016/1761 – alterations and improvements to the existing south-west link to Clos

Lempriere to provide access to Le Squez via Les Anqetils.

P/2017/0172 – archaeological assessment of the site through the digging of 26

investigative trenches.

It was acknowledged that the single point of entry/exit from La Grande Route de St

Clement was not ideal. However, the site was not capable of providing any

alternative vehicular routes and this was not a requirement of the Development Brief.

Consequently, integration with existing facilities/infrastructure for cyclists,

pedestrians and bus users was essential. This could only be achieved by linking the

main application site to 3 access application sites (reference numbers - P/2016/1759,

P/2016/1760 and P/2016/1761 – detailed above). The scheme provided 338 car

parking spaces for 200 units. In order to offset this shortfall in car parking, a

comprehensive package of measures to encourage alternative transport choices

formed part of the scheme. This included the physical provision of a section of the

Eastern Cycle Route and a financial contribution of £162,379 to subsidise bus

services. The Department for Infrastructure (DFI) supported the proposal, in

principle, subject to a number of conditions being satisfied. Implementation of these

28th Meeting

01.06.17

447

measures would ensure that the scheme would not lead to unacceptable problems

with traffic generation, safety or car parking.

The Committee was advised that the site would be connected to the main foul sewer

network. It was recognised that the Samares area had a high surface water table with

a history of flooding. DFI had been consulted and supported the proposal, in

principle, subject to a number of conditions being satisfied.

The ecological value of the site had been evaluated as high and a number of

ecological assessments had been prepared to include appropriate mitigation

measures – an Ecological Survey Results Report (ESRR) and a Species Protection

Plan (SPP). Provided the works were carried out in accordance with the mitigation

measures outlined, the significance of adverse impacts upon ecological assets could

be either avoided or reduced to minor significance. Accordingly, a condition was

proposed (No. 22, as detailed in the officer report).

Financial contributions of £150,000 to Le Squez youth club and a separate

Percentage for Art sum had also been agreed.

The Committee recalled that it had deferred consideration of the above application

at its meeting on 27th April 2017, pending a detailed briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

the same time further clarification had been sought from DFI in relation to the

drainage proposals. In this connexion the Committee had convened on 25th May

2017, to hear from representatives of the DFI. The Committee had been assured that

a detailed analysis of the proposals and the cumulative effect of traffic arising from

other developments had been undertaken by the DFI. It had been confirmed that the

DFI was satisfied with both the drainage arrangements and the methodology used to

assess the overall traffic implications.

4 letters of representation had been received from neighbouring properties and

revised plans had been submitted to address objections raised on the grounds of loss

of privacy. It was acknowledged that the application had not received the support of

the States of Jersey Police on some matters, nor the Parish of St Clement. However,

on balance the key areas for concern had been addressed during the application

process, either through the imposition of planning conditions or by the POA. As

such, the application was recommended for approval. If the POA was not completed

within 3 months then the application would be returned to the Committee for further

consideration.

Additional representations received after the publication of the agenda had been sent

to members under separate cover.

The Committee recalled that it had considered all written representations and had

heard from a number of individuals, speaking both for and against the scheme, at its

last meeting. Consequently, members agreed that it would not be necessary to hear

any further oral representations unless there were any new issues.

The Committee heard from Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement, who expressed

considerable disappointment that he had not been invited to attend the Committee

meeting held on 25th May 2017, when members had received a briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

that meeting further clarification had also been sought from DFI in relation to the

drainage proposals. The Connetable stressed that he believed that the transport

survey submitted by the applicants was seriously flawed. References had been made

to school access routes via roads which did not exist and statements to the effect that

vehicle ownership among tenants was lower than that of homeowners were perhaps

448

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

true of large UK cities but not of Jersey. Claims that the surrounding road network

could cope with the level of development proposed on this and other sites in the area

were strongly refuted by the Connetable. At present the timing of traffic lights was

being altered in an attempt to keep traffic moving.

In terms of drainage, the Connetable advised the Committee that, with each new

development that was built, flooding in area got worse. The Connetable noted that

the application proposed going under a parish road to connect to the foul sewer. He

stated that permission from the Parish was unlikely to be granted for this as there

had already been a collapse in the road so an alternative solution would have to be

found. In this connexion the Connetable referred to Article 9(3)(b) of the Planning

and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, as amended which stated that if the applicant was

not the owner of the land to be developed, a certificate confirming that the owner

approved of the making of the application was required. The Parish of St. Clement

had not been requested to provide such a certificate and the Connetable added, that

even if it had, it would not have agreed to the provision of the same. Consequently

it appeared that the application was ultra vires. The Director, Development Control

pointed out that consent for the work referred to by the Connetable was already in

place by virtue of the existence of a Development Order. A large number of planning

applications included some sort of drainage requirements so it was not necessary for

applicants to seek the consent of the landowner in each individual case.

The Committee heard from Mr. I. McDonald of Axis Mason, who advised that

neither the applicants nor their representatives had attended the Committee meeting

on 25th May 2017. In terms of the transport survey, Mr. McDonald reminded the

Committee that this had been scrutinised by the DFI, which Department was

satisfied with the proposals. In concluding, Mr. McDonald also referred the

Committee to the package of measures designed to encourage alternative transport

choices. In this connexion it was confirmed that discussions regarding possible

revisions to the cycle route were ongoing and had yet to be finalised.

The Committee discussed the application and, without exception, all members

expressed concerns regarding the traffic implications. However, members had

received assurances from the DFI that the proposals were acceptable in this context

and the applicants had proposed a range of mitigation measures. Consequently, the

Committee accordingly approved the application, subject to the conditions set out

within the officer report and on the basis of a POA, as detailed above.

Les Burons, Le

Squez Road,

St. Clement:

proposed

change of use

to create 3

accesses onto

Samares

Nurseries site.

477/5/2(756)

A15. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A15 of 27th April 2017,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the change of

use of land at Les Burons, Le Squez Road, St. Clement to facilitate the creation of 3

pedestrian/cyclist access routes from the Samares Nurseries site, La Grande Route

de St. Clement through Le Squez via Les Burons, Le Squez Road, St. Clement. The

most southerly of the 3 accesses would have a drop bollard to allow emergency

services to access the area. The routes through Les Burons would provide residents

of the proposed new development on the Samares Nurseries site with access to Le

Squez Youth Club, Samares school, shops, the bus stop and nearby beaches. The

Committee had visited the site on 25th April 2017.

Deputies J.M. Maçon of St Saviour and S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier were not

present for the determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the application

site was located in the Built-Up Area and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

28th Meeting

01.06.17

449

The Committee noted that the above application was connected with the proposed

development of the Samares Nurseries site (application reference - P/2016/1757). If

approved, the schemes would be linked by a Planning Obligation Agreement.

It was recalled that the Samares Nurseries site was served by a single point of

entry/exit from La Grande Route de St Clement which, it was acknowledged, was

not ideal. However there were no alternative vehicular routes and the provision of

the same was not a requirement of the Development Brief. As such, the transport

philosophy behind the redevelopment of the Samares Nurseries site was to promote

sustainable transport choices. Whilst car parking was included within the scheme,

the emphasis was on encouraging sustainable modes of transport. Consequently, the

application under consideration related to the provision of 3 pedestrian/cyclist access

routes from the Samares Nurseries site through to Le Squez via Les Burons. The

Department for Infrastructure supported the application, subject to the imposition of

certain conditions. The application was recommended for approval subject to the

imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report and on the basis of

the entering into a POA which would link this application to the Samares Nurseries

site application.

No representations had been received in connexion with the above application.

The Committee recalled that it had deferred consideration of the above application

at its meeting on 27th April 2017, pending a detailed briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

the same time further clarification would also be sought from DFI in connexion with

the drainage proposals. In this connexion the Committee had convened on 25th May

2017, to hear from representatives of the DFI. The Committee had been assured that

a detailed analysis of the proposals and the cumulative effect of traffic arising from

other developments had been undertaken by the DFI. It had been confirmed that the

DFI was satisfied with both the drainage arrangements and the methodology used to

assess the overall traffic implications.

All oral representations in connexion with this item were recorded in Minute No.

A14.

The Committee accordingly approved the application, subject to the conditions set

out within the officer report and on the basis of a POA, as detailed above.

Field Nos.

C52, C51 and

C48, Rue du

Maupertuis, St.

Clement:

proposed

change of use

of parts of

fields to create

cycle track.

477/5/2(757)

P/2016/1760

A16. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A16 of 27th April 2017, of

the present meeting considered a report in connexion with an application which

proposed the change of use of parts of Field Nos. C52, C51 and C48, Rue du

Maupertuis, St. Clement to facilitate the creation of a cycle path through the fields

leading to the roadside of Rue de Maupertuis. This cycle path would form a section

of the Eastern Cycle Route. The layout of the route had been dictated by the

applicant’s ability to gain the consent of each of the respective landowners. The

Committee had visited the site on 25th April 2017.

Deputies J.M. Maçon of St Saviour and S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier were not

present for the determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the above fields

were located in the Green Zone and on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor. Policies

NE7, TT3, ERE1 and SP6 of the 2011 Island Plan were relevant.

The Committee noted that the above application was connected with the proposed

development of the Samares Nurseries site (application reference - P/2016/1757). If

approved, the schemes would be linked by a Planning Obligation Agreement.

450

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

The Committee recalled that the Samares Nurseries site was served by a single point

of entry/exit from La Grande Route de St Clement which, it was acknowledged, was

not ideal. However there were no alternative vehicular routes and the provision of

the same was not a requirement of the Development Brief. As such, the transport

philosophy behind the redevelopment of the Samares Nurseries site was to promote

sustainable transport choices. Whilst car parking was included within the scheme,

the emphasis was on encouraging sustainable modes of transport. Consequently, the

application under consideration related to the provision of a vital section of the

Eastern Cycle Route. Although it was acknowledged that a direct route would have

been preferable, the applicant had been in negotiations with landowners for over 18

months and had been unable to secure the same. The Department for Infrastructure

supported the application, subject to the imposition of certain conditions. The land

would be ceded to the States of Jersey and this would be secured via a Planning

Obligation Agreement. The Natural Environment Section also supported the

application, subject to the imposition of certain conditions. However, the Land

Controls and Agricultural Development Section objected to the application on the

grounds of the loss of agricultural land. Whilst this would be the case, the cycle path

was only 3.5 metres wide and followed the field boundaries. As such, the proposal

was not considered to compromise the agricultural functioning of the fields. Policy

NE7 presumed against development but the preamble described the Green Zone as

a living landscape where there may be an opportunity to provide public access. The

cycle path included timber post and rail fencing, the design of which had been

carefully considered to ensure it was appropriate in this semi-agricultural landscape.

This was a common boundary treatment in the Green Zone and was not, therefore,

considered to result in harm to the landscape character. Although Policy NE7

included a number of exceptions, this proposal did not fall neatly into any of them.

Therefore, the proposal had to be considered against the overriding test of Policy

NE7; namely whether the development would cause serious harm to the landscape

character. Whilst the proposed cycle path would be visible and would inevitably

cause some harm, given the materials and route alongside field boundaries, it was

not considered to cause serious harm. Consequently, the application was

recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of certain conditions detailed

within the officer report and on the basis of the entering into a POA which would

link this application to the Samares Nurseries site application.

2 letters of representation had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee recalled that it had deferred consideration of the above application

at its meeting on 27th April 2017, pending a detailed briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

the same time further clarification would also be sought from DFI in connexion with

the drainage proposals. In this connexion the Committee had convened on 25th May

2017, to hear from representatives of the DFI. The Committee had been assured that

a detailed analysis of the proposals and the cumulative effect of traffic arising from

other developments had been undertaken by the DFI. It had been confirmed that the

DFI was satisfied with both the drainage arrangements and the methodology used to

assess the overall traffic implications.

All oral representations in connexion with this item were recorded in Minute No.

A14.

The Committee accordingly approved the application, subject to the conditions set

out within the officer report and on the basis of a POA, as detailed above.

28th Meeting

01.06.17

451

Les Anquetils,

Le Squez

Road, St.

Clement:

proposed

change of use

to create access

to Samares

Nurseries site.

477/5/2(758)

P/2016/1761

A17. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A17 of 27th April 2017,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the change of

use of parts of land at Les Anquetils, Le Squez Road, St. Clement to facilitate access

to the Samares Nurseries site, La Grande Route de St. Clement. The Committee had

visited the site on 25th April 2017.

Deputies J.M. Maçon of St Saviour and S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier were not

present for the determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the above site

was located in the Built-Up Area and was on the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor.

The Committee noted that the above application was connected with the proposed

development of the Samares Nurseries site (application reference - P/2016/1757). If

approved, the schemes would be linked by a Planning Obligation Agreement.

The Committee recalled that the Samares Nurseries site was served by a single point

of entry/exit from La Grande Route de St Clement which, it was acknowledged, was

not ideal. However there were no alternative vehicular routes and the provision of

the same was not a requirement of the Development Brief. As such, the transport

philosophy behind the redevelopment of the Samares Nurseries site was to promote

sustainable transport choices. Whilst car parking was included within the scheme,

the emphasis was on encouraging sustainable modes of transport. Consequently, the

application under consideration related to the removal of the fencing between the

Samares Nurseries site and the existing south-west link to Clos Lempriere (a private

road/housing development within the control of a Housing Trust). The altered

boundary would be reinstated with a one metre wall with fencing above, to a finished

height of 1.8 metres. There would be no access from Les Squez and the Samares

Nurseries site into Clos Lempriere, other than through a metal gate with a digilock.

However the altered boundaries would allow pedestrian and cyclist access between

Les Squez and the Samares Nurseries site. This route through would provide

residents of the proposed new development on the Samares Nurseries site with

access to Le Squez Youth Club, Samares school, shops, the bus stop and nearby

beaches. The Department for Infrastructure supported the application, subject to

conditions. The application was, therefore, recommended for approval subject to the

imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report and the applicant

entering into a POA which would link this application to the Samares Nurseries site

application.

No representations had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee recalled that it had deferred consideration of the above application

at its meeting on 27th April 2017, pending a detailed briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

the same time further clarification would also be sought from DFI in connexion with

the drainage proposals. In this connexion the Committee had convened on 25th May

2017, to hear from representatives of the DFI. The Committee had been assured that

a detailed analysis of the proposals and the cumulative effect of traffic arising from

other developments had been undertaken by the DFI. It had been confirmed that the

DFI was satisfied with both the drainage arrangements and the methodology used to

assess the overall traffic implications.

All oral representations in connexion with this item were recorded in Minute No.

A14.

The Committee accordingly approved the application, subject to the conditions set

out within the officer report and on the basis of a POA, as detailed above.

452

28th Meeting

01.06.2017

Samares

Nurseries, La

Grande Route

de St. Clement,

St. Clement:

proposed

archaeological

evaluation

trenches.

477/5/2(232)

P/2017/0172

A18. The Committee, with reference to its Minute No. A18 of 27th April 2017,

considered a report in connexion with an application which proposed the digging of

26 archaeological evaluation trenches on the Samares Nurseries site, La Grande

Route de St. Clement. The Committee had visited the site on 25th April 2017.

Deputies J.M. Maçon of St Saviour and S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier were not

present for the determination of this application.

A site plan and drawings were displayed. The Committee noted that the above site

was located in both the Built-Up Area and the Green Zone and was on the Eastern

Cycle Route Corridor.

The Committee noted that the above application was connected with the proposed

development of the Samares Nurseries site (application reference - P/2016/1757). If

approved, the schemes would be linked by a Planning Obligation Agreement.

The application under consideration related to the creation of 26 archaeological

evaluation trenches to establish the archaeological impact of the proposed residential

development on the Samares Nurseries site (application reference P/2016/1757).

The Environmental Land Controls Section had been consulted and had made no

comments. The Historic Environment Team (HET) had no objection to the proposal.

Following consultation with the Department’s Archaeological consultant (Oxford

Archaeology) additional trenches had been requested and it had also been

recommended that each trench be deeper than originally proposed. A condition had,

therefore, been proposed requiring the submission and approval of an updated

Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) to respond to the issues raised by Oxford

Archaeology. The application was recommended for approval, subject to the

imposition of certain conditions detailed within the officer report and the applicant

entering into a POA which would link this application to the Samares Nurseries site

application.

No representations had been received in connexion with the application.

The Committee recalled that it had deferred consideration of the above application

at its meeting on 27th April 2017, pending a detailed briefing on the traffic

implications of the proposed development and other developments in the area. At

the same time further clarification would also be sought from DFI in connexion with

the drainage proposals. In this connexion the Committee had convened on 25th May

2017, to hear from representatives of the DFI. The Committee had been assured that

a detailed analysis of the proposals and the cumulative effect of traffic arising from

other developments had been undertaken by the DFI. It had been confirmed that the

DFI was satisfied with both the drainage arrangements and the methodology used to

assess the overall traffic implications.

All oral representations in connexion with this item were recorded in Minute No.

A14.

The Committee accordingly approved the application, subject to the conditions set

out within the officer report and on the basis of a POA, as detailed above.