Streatham, Grande Route de St. Martin, St. Saviour - maintain refusal

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (01.12.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Streatham, Grande Route de St. Martin, St. Saviour.

Subject:	Streatham, La Grande Route de St Martin, St. Saviour JE2 7GT Construct 2 storey dwelling in garden of Streatham.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0118	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/0762
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Marion Jones
Decision(s) Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for decision: No new grounds upon which to justify altering the decision. Maintain refusal for the reasons stated below:- 1. Proposal will cause an unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of privacy caused by direct overlooking contrary to Policy G2 (ii) and H8 (iii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The scale, form and massing of the proposed development will cause an unacceptable detrimental impact on surrounding neighbouring properties and character of the area contrary to Policy G3 and Policy H8 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Action required: Notify Agent/Architect
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 01.12.06

Hide report

Streatham, Grande Route de St. Martin, St. Saviour - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/0762

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Streatham, La Grande Route de St Martin, St. Saviour, JE2 7GT.

Requested by	Mr. A.Sewell	Agent	Grainger PDC Ltd

Description	Construct 2 storey dwelling in garden of Streatham. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal will cause an unaccepable impact on neighbouring properties by virtue of loss of privacy caused by direct overlooking contary to Policy G2 (ii) and H8 (iii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The scale, form and massing of the proposed development will cause an unacceptable detrimental impact on surrounding neighbouring properties and character of the area contrary to Policy G3 and Policy H8 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Planning Application Panel

Date	25/08/2006

Zones	Built Up Area Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	H8 (iii) - will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of noise, visual intrusion or other amenity considerations G2 (ii) - will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations.

Recommendation

Refusal - Officer’s recommendation of Approval overturned by Planning Applications Panel

Comments on Case	5th October 2006 - Request for reconsideration received to appeal against the decision “on the basis that it is unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances”. (Please refer to attached letter dated 4th October 2006). Planning History The planning application was subject to pre-application advice on two occasions and was based on a proposal to construct a four bedroom, two storey dwelling within the garden of the property known as ‘Streatham’. The officer advice was clear that a large two storey dwelling was considered unsuitable for the site as it would be likely to harm the amenity of the existing property ‘Streatham’ through overbearing. Furthermore, the proposed development would likely cause an overlooking prejudice to properties to the north/east and south/west also including ‘Streatham’. A more modest single storey dwelling within the Built-up area was considered more appropriate as it would likely lessen the impact in terms of scale and overbearing impact on the surrounding dwellings which were predominately bungalows. The issue of forming a new access from the existing roadway of ‘La Jardin de la Fontaine’ in Maufant Village was raised but only at a discussion level with the highway authority. General guidance for the proposals was offered as no drawings were submitted in support of the scheme. On submission and assessment of the planning application it was clear that the overbearing impact and design concerns raised during the pre-application stages had not been fully taken into account. However, negotiations resolved the immediate concerns regarding the loss of privacy through direct overlooking and the overbearing relationship to ‘Streatham’ and surrounding adjacent properties. Ten letters of objection were received at the application stage and two further letters of objection have been received for the Request for Reconsideration. The majority of the objections received were from residents of Maufant Village who were concerned about the new access being created from the village access road. Several adjacent properties to ‘Streatham’ raised concerns regarding the loss of privacy, scale, character and proportion that the development would have on surrounding properties. Impact Following negotiations the concerns regarding direct overlooking had been removed from the initial scheme. Issues regarding the overbearing impact that the scheme would have particularly to ‘Streatham’ had been reduced through the removal of the dormer to the rear and the relocation of the plots foot print 400mm to the south. However, the Panel during their site visit raised concerns that a new dwelling approximately 4 m from ‘Streatham’ still might create an overbearing impact which was considered unreasonable to both ‘Streatham’ and the surrounding neighbouring buildings. The Panel during their site visit noted a propensity of bungalows within the vicinity of ‘Streatham’. During the ensuing Panel discussions the agent commented that he did not “consider it inappropriate to construct a dormer bungalow on the site”. The agent highlights in his appeal letter that there is always a mix of both single and two storey bungalows as well as two storey houses in residential areas in the Island. Conclusion Notwithstanding the recommendation for approval put to the Panel, members had significant concerns over the proposal. These concerns echoed previous issues discussed with the applicant and his agent and as such are not unreasonable in the context of the proposal. In these circumstances as there are no new factors introduced to the proposal with this Request for Reconsideration the refusal is recommended to be maintained.

Recommendation	Refusal

Reasons	Planning Applications Panel decision

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Pre-application enquiry letters 27.09.05 & 24.01.05 Pre-application advice letters 4.2.05 & 6.10.05 Consultation repsonse - Parish - 23.5.05 Letters of representation : -  Deputy R. Le Herrisier - 8th & 9th May ‘06  Deputy F.J. Hill – 1st May ‘06  10 Le Jardin de la Fontaine – 10th May 2006  12 Le Jardin de la Fontaine – 3rd May 2006  13 Le Jardin de la Fontaine – 10th May 2006  14 Le Jardin de la Fontaine – 5th May 2006  11 La Cloture, Maufant – 28th April 2006  ‘Burma Cottage’, Le Jardin de la Fontaine, 24th April 2006  ‘Altamira’, Le Jardin de la Fontaine, 30th April 2006  ‘Quelchador’, St. Martin’s Main Road, 5th May 2006-05-24  Agent’s response letter 12 May 2006 General E: Mail correspondence between agent and officer Agent’s letter of appeal – 4th October 2006 Letters of representation:-  Mr & Mrs Fox – 25th October 2006  K Deveau – 23rd October 2006

Endorsed by		Date