26-30 La Colomberie: Refusal of planning permission

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 28 March 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0026			Application Number: P/2011/0861 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	26 - 30, La Colomberie, St. Helier		Date of Decision Summary:		27 March 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	P/2011/0861		Date of Written Report:		5 March 2012
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , 26 - 30, La Colomberie, , St. Helier, , Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct six storey building comprising of basement parking, storage, ground floor retail, 12 No. apartments and 4 No. dwellings. Model Available.
Decision(s): At the public Ministerial Meeting of 13 March 2012 the Minister considered the Department Report, and heard from the agent for the applicant, and objectors to the application. The Minister indicated that he was minded to refuse the application, expressing his concerns that the application was over-development of the site, the design of the top floors was inappropriate, there was insufficient amenity space and potentially detrimental impacts on the neighbours at Colomberie Court. The Minister deferred his formal decision until he had undertaken a site visit. The Minister undertook the site visit on 19 March 2012, accompanied by an Officer, and was joined on site by the agent for the applicant, and 3 local residents. Having considered the policies of the Jersey Island Plan and all material considerations, on 26th March 2012 the Minister decided to REFUSE the application, for the reasons set out below.
Reason(s) for Decision: 1. By reference to excessive height of the two storey pavillion structure at the upper levels on the corner of Grenville Street and La Colomberie the application is considered to be out of context with existing scale, massing and grain of the area. As such, the application is contrary to Policies GD1, GD7 and BE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 2. By reference to overtly contemporary design of the two storey pavillion structure at the upper levels on the corner of Grenville Street and La Colomberie, the application is considered to be inappropriate to the location and context, and harmful to the character of the area. As such, the application is contrary to Policies GD1, GD7 and BE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 3. By reference to apartments 5 to 14 (inclusive) the application fails to make adequate provision for the necessary quantum of amenity space as set out within PPN6 “A Minimum Specification for New Housing Developments” and as such the application is contrary to Policy H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

26-30 La Colomberie: Refusal of planning permission

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)Department of the Environment

Report for Ministerial Meeting

The Minister has called this application in for his determination as, by reference to the location of the site on a prominent corner, and by virtue of the importance of the site for the continued regeneration of the area, the proposal is considered to be of significant importance.

1. Application Number

P/2011/0861

2.Site Address	26-30, La Colomberie, St. Helier.

3.Applicant	G De Zille Sharman Limited

4.Description	Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct six storey building comprising of basement parking, storage, ground floor retail, 12 No. apartments and 4 No. dwellings. Model Available.

5.Type	Planning

6.Date Validated	21/06/2011

7. Zones & Constraints	Built-Up Area Potential Listed Place Town Map Area Town Centre Existing Ped Priority Area Primary Route Network
Summary Department Recommendation	The application seeks permission to demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site for 12 apartments and four townhouse dwellings, with a ground floor retail unit. The proposed structure would be primarily 4 floors, with a further 2 upper floors in a ‘pavilion’ set back from the edge of the building line, finished in coloured glass with metal fins. The applicant has submitted a well-considered case in relation to the demolition of the building, and an assessment of the implications for the supply of employment land. Given the characteristics of the existing building, these matters are accepted. The proposed redevelopment delivers a building which is architecturally competent, in a form which is of its time yet uses familiar proportions and materials to provide an interesting conclusion to an important corner within the town. It will assist the continued regeneration of this area, and fits well into the grain of the surrounding buildings, as a positive asset. The proposal contains a good mix of unit types which are well in excess of the minimum size requirements, and although the scheme falls short of the usual amenity space and car parking requirements the proposal as a whole is considered to be positive. The application is therefore supported with detailed mattes to be concluded by conditions. APPROVE

8. Site Description & Existing Use

The site forms the corner of La Colomberie and Grenville Street, and extends to ground floor plus 2 upper floors. The ground floor has been in retail use, and the upper floors are in use as a private gym.

9. Proposed Development

The application seeks permission to demolish the existing structures and redevelop the site for 12 apartments and four townhouse dwellings, with a ground floor retail unit.

The proposed structure would be primarily 4 floors, with a further 2 upper floors in a ‘pavilion’ set back from the edge of the building line, finished in coloured glass with metal fins.

The apartments are a mix of one and two-bed units and are proposed for the corner element above the retail unit, with the first, second and third floors each yielding three units. The pavilion then contains three further duplex units.

The townhouses are to the Grenville Street elevation, where the ground floor provides car parking, with eight spaces in a stacker system and the upper floors deliver four townhouses, containing four bedrooms each (although presented as three-bed units, each contains a further room annotated as ‘study’ on the top floor, being the same dimensions as bed 2 on the floor below, so for all practical purposes this study will be considered as a fourth bedroom).

10. Relevant Planning History

The majority of the planning history relates to incidental applications as relevant to the previous uses of the buildings. It is noteworthy (although not implemented and long expired) that in October 1999 application reference P/1999/0889 granted permission to demolish the existing building and erect a 5 storey office building with basement car parking.

11. Consultations

(include a summary of recommendation from consultees) as appropriate)Parish in its letter dated 14 July 2011 provides comments in relation: to the need for a refuse strategy to include a dedicated bin for the retail unit; the need for one car parking space per unit; and, clarification of the unloading arrangements for the retail unit.

Fire and Rescue in its letter dated 7 July 2011 question if any of the premises will require clearance under the Licensing (Jersey) Law 1974 and request copies of the fire safety drawings at the Bye-Law stage.

Highways section of TTS in its undated response received on 28 November 2011 confirm they are generally supportive of the proposal, on the basis of the accessibility to alternative means of travel and the provision of cycle stores. They do express concerns about the impact on the loading bay on Grenville Street and advise on options for resolution.

The options for the loading bay have been subject to ongoing discussion. TTS Highways have confirmed the arrangements are acceptable, although final resolution would be need to be subject to a Ministerial Order.

Drainage section of TTS in its letter dated 19 August 2011 confirm that foul and surface connections to the mains are available, and provide advice about connections.

Health Protection Team of H&SS in its letter dated 3 August 2011 set out their guidance for noise exposure within mixed use developments. They also request a Construction / Demolition Environmental Management Plan to deal with site noise, hours of working, dust / odour / fume controls and complaints. They provide further guidance on the need to manage noise and vibration from any plant / equipment including the operation of the car park stacker system.

Natural Environment Section of DoE in its undated latter (received on 14 September 2011) recommend that if the application is approved a condition be added to any permit to require survey / mitigation for any protected species.

Environmental Protection Section of DoE in its letter dated 18 July 2011 confirm that any asbestos should be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Waste Management (Jersey) Law 2005.

Historic Environment Team of DoE in its memo dated 20 July 2011 confirm the site is within an Area of Archaeological Potential and request a Desk Based Assessment. They also express a concern that the proposal is too high with reference to the relationship and impacts on the potential Listed Building at 34 La Colomberie.

All consultations and responses from the applicant / agent are attached with the background papers

12. Representations

There have been two letters of representation, both raising objections to the proposal on the basis of:

Buildings are over-scaled for the area;
There will be nose, dust and general mayhem during construction;
The height will cause loss of light;
Traffic both during construction and associated with the development, will have a negative impact.
The construction works may damage adjacent properties.

The applicant has responded with two letters from their agent dated 30 July 2011 setting out a point-by-point review of the concerns raised.

All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

13. Planning

Assessment

a)Policy Considerations

In relation to site-specific policies designations, the proposal is within the Built Up Area, where Policy H6 sets out that new development will be permitted provided it accords with the published Minimum Standards.

In this regard the unit sizes are all comfortably in excess of the required minimum areas. The car parking is provided on the basis of 8 spaces for 16 units (a ratio of 0.5 spaces per unit). The proposal is within an area where the usual standard is 1 space per unit, plus visitor provision, however, in this instance the support from TTS Highways in relation to the sustainable location of the proposal is material, as is the provision of dedicated cycle stores, which provide further support to encouraging travel by alternative modes of transport – on this basis the reduced level of car parking is therefore supportable. In relation to amenity space, each unit has a private balcony or terrace. The scale of these varies across the proposal, and the provision is generally larger for the larger units. In quantitative terms the provision is well below the usual minimum levels, however, taking account of the complete package, specifically the considerable increase in relation to internal space standards, and that each unit does have dedicated and usable private amenity space, then the provision is considered reasonable.

The Island Plan (in Policies GD1 and GD2) establishes a presumption against the demolition of buildings which are appropriate in sustainability terms to repair or refurbish. The replacement of a building will only be permitted when they enhance the appearance of the site and its surroundings.

The applicant has submitted a Waste Management Plan with the application, which is a detailed document setting out the approach to reducing, reusing and recycling waste, however this does not deal with the principles of demolition and the Department requested further information on this matter.

In response the applicant has produced a further report on the condition of the building (as part of the assessment in relation top Policy E1, considered later). Their case focuses on the poor building quality of the existing structures, specifically the damp in the basement and unclear foundations, which has resulted in random supporting columns throughout the building. Further the electrical systems, boiler and heating all require replacement. It is their case that the building has reached the end of its useful life and that the replacement can offer a high-quality replacement, using modern construction techniques and incorporating many energy efficient features. On the basis of this case, taking account of the baseline situation, the demolition of the buildings is accepted. The later sections of this report will consider whether the replacement structures will enhance the appearance of the site and its surroundings.

With reference to Policy GD5, in relation to Skyline, Views and Vistas, and Policy BE5 Tall Buildings (the maximum height is 18.165m) the applicant has submitted a detailed Visual Impact Assessment demonstrating how the design takes account of any potentially significant effects. This submission is accepted and the proposal is considered to accord with the provisions of both GD5 and BE5 in that it represents and appropriate conclusion to the corner, it enhances the immediate context, and will not be detrimental in longer views.

The feedback from the Historic Environment Team expresses a concern about the setting of the potential Listed Building at 34 La Colomberie but it is considered that the proposal does reflect the existing grain, scale and mass of the immediate context, and the impact on the setting will be no more prejudiced than it may already be considered to be. Whilst there is already a basement in the present structures, the potential for archaeology to be discovered on site during the construction process is noted, and can be controlled by conditions. Given this position, it is considered that the application accords with Policies HE1 and HE5.

The mix of housing units is considered by Policy H4 and this is considered to be delivered in the application, which includes a range of apartments and houses. The inclusion of houses is particularly welcomed, given the disproportionate weight of smaller apartments in the development pipeline for St Helier town centre, and as the family living within the town centre will support a variety of services.

The importance of Policy E1 has also been acknowledged by the applicant. This seeks to ensure that land in employment use is not lost, so retaining the opportunities for jobs. In this regard, the applicant has submitted a report on the commercial viability of the premises, which includes a criteria based analysis of the policy provisions. In particular it is noted:

that the use of the upper floors as a gym is not longer viable, with the premises to be vacated upon the expiration of the current lease in 2014;
a property agent has been circulating plans for office redevelopment since late 2010 / early 2011, without any formal interest. It is their professional opinion that this is, in part, due to the excess supply of office space.
The configuration of the upper floors is not compatible with the needs of a modern office occupier, and lacks the ability to comply with up-to-date standards in relation to layout and safety.
The ground floor unit has also through an extensive marketing exercise and there has been limited interest, dues to location, market conditions (with the core of the town gravitating towards the Waterfront) and the lack of a level ground floor.

Alongside these points, the scheme remains for a mixed use proposal, with a substantial retail unit to the ground floor. On the basis of this submission, the proposal is considered to comply with the policy requirements.

The following sections of this Report also provide an assessment in relation to other policies within the Jersey Island Plan.

b)Size, scale

Form and Siting

The building uses the footprint of the existing built form, and the main elements of the façade rise to the height of the adjoining site context. Beyond the main façade, the pavilion is considered an elegant and contemporary conclusion to building and to the street corner. Whilst innovative in its presentation is not offensive and sits comfortably within the street context. It is notable that the use of coloured glazing (in the pavilion) is replicated elsewhere in the building in the Percentage for Art proposals, so helping to unify the form.

c)Architectural Design and Use of Materials

The design and detailing is considered to be high quality, with the proposal using a comfortable palette of materials, and well proportioned openings to deliver a form which is appropriate in the surrounding streetscape, yet obviously of its time. Further information is contained within a detailed Design Statement, which explains the evolution of the design.

d) Impact In the

Landscape/Street

As considered in earlier sections, the building is considered to be relatively soft in the streetscape, by reflected to the scale and the use of materials. The roof pavilion is the interesting element, and this is (again as per earlier commentary) considered to be a visually obvious, yet sensitively concluded, element of the form.

The application presents a service interface to Grenville Street (being the access to the car park) which has been delivered in a manner which will considerable enhance the current presentation – not only in relation to the visual appearance of the ground floor, but also in relation to the traditional grain of the town house elevation being put back into the street.

e) Impact on

Neighbours

Any impacts on neighbours are likely to be limited to the immediate context. Given that it is on the north side of the street block, and as the scale is not considered excessive, any overbearing impacts are not considered to be unreasonable. Additionally, there are not considered to be any unreasonable impacts in relation to overlooking or other amenity issues, therefore the proposal is considered acceptable.

f) Access, Car

Parking & Highways

Considerations

As considered in the policy assessment, the car parking provision is below the required standards, but given the complete package the provision is considered acceptable.

In relation to other highway matters, the need to provide an adequate visibility splay southwards down Grenville Street means that the public on-street parking and the loading bays would have to be reconfigured. TTS Highways have given an indicative agreement to the proposed option, which would have to be delivered with the future agreement of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services.

g) Foul Sewage &

Surface Water

Disposal

The site can be connected to the main foul and surface water drains.

h) Landscaping

The amenity space provision has been considered earlier. In relation to general soft landscaping, a sedum roof is proposed to the pavilion, and other incidental planting areas are proposed around the upper parapet level and within the roof terraces.

i) Archaeology

The site is within an Area of Archaeological Potential and although the existing property already has a basement it would be important to ensure that these matters are property investigated with a desk based assessment as a first phase of evaluation, to be followed by other investigations as necessary depending on the outcome.

j)Waste Management

The Waste Management issues have been reviewed in the earlier policy assessment.

k)Planning Obligations

& Percent for Art

A Percentage for Art offer has been submitted, setting out the proposal to deliver bespoke infill screens to the ground floor Grenville Street elevation, to reduce an perception of this being the ‘service’ entrance.

l)Contaminated Land

n/a

m) Sustainability

The sustainability benefits of the proposal have been reviewed in earlier sections of this Report, specifically in relation to the condition of the existing building, and the locational benefits of the site.

n) Other Matters

n/a

14. Conclusion

The applicant has submitted a well-considered case in relation to the demolition of the building, and an assessment of the implications for the supply of employment land. Given the characteristics of the existing building, this case is also accepted.

The proposed redevelopment delivers a building which is architecturally competent, in a form which is of its time yet uses familiar proportions and materials to provide an interesting conclusion to an important corner within the town. It will assist the continued regeneration of this area and fits well into the grain of the surrounding buildings, as a positive asset.

The proposal contains a good mix of unit types which are well in excess of the minimum size requirements, and although the scheme falls short of the usual amenity space and car parking requirements the proposal as a whole is considered to be positive the application is therefore supported with detailed matters to be concluded by conditions.

15.Department Recommendation

APPROVE

16. Conditions (Reasons in Italics after each condition)

1. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details, including samples and colours, of all external materials and hard surfacing to be used to construct the development including windows, downpipes, hoppers, gutters, railings, roof materials and other elevational finishes shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented, and thereafter maintained.

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the amenities of the area and to deliver a high quality of design in accordance with Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

2. Prior to first use of the new vehicle access to Grenville Street the reconfigured public car parking and loading bays are to be in situ and operational, and everything within the required visibility sight lines (as shown on drawing 2319-L(0-)-051), including gates, walls, railings and plants growth is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level.

In the interests of highway safety, in the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 and of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

3. A Percentage for Art contribution must be delivered in accordance with the Percentage for Art Statement submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Planning and Environment (Drawing Y). The approved work of art must be installed prior to the first use/occupation of any part of the development hereby approved.

In accord with the provisions of Policy GD8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be thereafter implemented in full until completion of the development and any variations agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to such work commencing. The Plan shall secure an implementation programme of mitigation measures to minimise the adverse effects of the proposal, and shall include:
i) A demonstration of compliance with best practice in relation to noise and vibration control, and control of dust and emissions;

ii) Details of a publicised complaints procedure, including office hours and out-of-hours contact numbers;

iii) Specified hours of working to be restricted to 0800-1800 Monday to Friday and 0800-1300 Saturdays and not at all on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays;

iv) Details of any proposed crushing / sorting of waste material on site;

To ensure the development does not have an unreasonable impact on public health or the wider environment and to accord with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

5. Prior to the occupation of the development of hereby permitted, an Acoustic Report (including any necessary mitigation works) shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to a methodology agreed with the Health Protection Department, to be thereafter implemented and maintained, to demonstrate that any externally audible plant or equipment shall comply with the Noise Rating (NR) Curve equivalent to the background noise level measured 1 metre from the boundary of the nearest residential properties. The background noise level referred to is the A-weighted sound pressure of the residual noise in decibels exceeded for 90% of the time (LA90).

In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

6. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted, confirmation shall be submitted to the Minister for Planning and Environment that the machinery required for the operation of the car park stacking system is fitted with suitable mitigation to avoid noise and vibration being transferred to the residential units through the building structure.

In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

7. No unit shall be occupied until a plan identifying the allocated car parking spaces for each particular unit has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Such areas shall thereafter be permanently retained for the purposes of parking / manoeuvring.

To ensure that the site has adequate car parking facilities in accordance with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

8. Notwithstanding the information on the submitted drawings, prior to the commencement of development details of separated waste facilities and waste collection arrangements (to include the retail unit) communal satellite television reception system (or other communications infrastructure), electric car charging points and proposed rainwater harvesting, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity.

In the interest of sustainable development and adequate service infrastructure, and to accord with Policies GD1 and H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

9. The ground floor retail unit shall be occupied only as an operation within Class A as defined by the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011 (as amended).

For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of ensuring the vitality and viability of the area in accordance with Policy BE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

10. Prior to the commencement of development an Ecological Survey of the site to appraise the presence / absence of bats, or any other protected species, and to ensure adequate mitigation is in place, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The Ecological Survey shall be undertaken by a person, and to a methodology / timetable, to be agreed in advance by the Minister for Planning and Environment.

To ensure that significant harm is not caused to protected species and / or their habitats, in accordance with Policy NE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

11. Prior to the commencement of development an Archaeological Desk Based Assessment, in accordance with Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1, shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The Desk Based Assessment shall be undertaken by a person, and to a methodology to be agreed in advance by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Depending on the conclusion of the Desk Based Assessment, the Minister for Planning and Environment will also need to be satisfied that appropriate and satisfactory provision for the excavation and recording of the remains, for the publication of the findings and, in some cases the treatment and deposition of finds, is in place before development can commence.

In the interests of understanding and preserving the special historic interest of the site, in particular any archaeological resources, in accordance with Policy HE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

17. Reason for

Approval The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policy GD1 of the 2011 Island Plan and, in this case, the proposed development is regarded as acceptable because the scale and nature of the proposal is such that the impacts on the external environment and neighbours are not considered to be unreasonable.

In addition, the representations raised to the scheme on the basis of scale and impact during construction have been assessed and by reference to the existing grain of the area, the orientation of the building and the proposed conditions in the context of Policy GD1 of the 2011 Jersey Island Plan it is not considered there will be any unreasonable impacts.

18. Background

Papers 1:2500 Location Plan

Consultation responses, letters of objection and responses from agent/ applicant.

Endorsed by:

Date: