The agent’s letter highlights his concern with the administration of the application. He suggests that the application was not allocated to a planning officer for 4 weeks from the date it was received. The application was dealt with and the refusal notice issued within the 8 week deadline, as set out in the Department’s Service Level Agreement. He states that the agent was not given the opportunity to address the concerns of the planning officer before it was determined. The application was not considered to meet many of the requirements set out in the Departments supplementary guidance or the policies set out in the Jersey Island Plan,2002, and was therefore considered irredeemable, hence a refusal notice was issued. Reason 1 The agent refers to the first reason for refusal and states that the site ‘accommodates 6 no. vehicles’. Only five car parking spaces are shown on the site plan, one of which is not achievable on site because of a step which exists outside the front door. This leaves 3 spaces for the house and one for the proposed unit. The space allocated for the new unit was not adjacent to the new unit, but meant that the occupant would use an access way along the side of the house, and this arrangement was not considered satisfactory. The driveway to the west of the house is narrow and is not considered practical for a parking space, given the fact that there is no space to turn around to exit in a forward gear. The proximity of the entrance of this driveway to the main road would make reversing a danger to highway safety. Furthermore, Reason 1 states that inaccurate information has been provided for the layout of the gardens. The siting of the house and the conservatory in relation to the garage is inaccurate. There is very little distance between the conservatory and the proposed new unit. Reason 2 The agent states that the internal floor area is measured at 38m2, and is within the guidelines set out in Planning Policy Note No. 6 (PPN No. 6), which states that a one person flat should be no smaller that 30m2. However, the size of the main bedroom is 9.5m2, which fails to meet the standards. PPN no. 6 states that a main or first bedroom should be no less than 12.5m2, or if there are two doubles each room should be no less than 10.5m2. The kitchen, dining and living room is combined and measures 17.92m2. This living area is considered substandard. According to the standards, there should be two living spaces, and a kitchen, living and dining area should be no less than 24.6m2, and a kitchen/ diner should be no less than 13m2. The shower room is very small and would be difficult to manoeuvre in. Reason 2 and 3 The agent states that all main rooms are adequately served by natural light, and adequate external amenity was to be provided. Only a south west facing door and a small window has been proposed for the kitchen/ living area. No external light or natural ventilation has been proposed for the shower room. He argues that natural light and ventilation should not be sited as a reason for refusal, as ventilation of the room has been covered under the Bye-Law application. This forms part of the reason for refusal as this specification is set out in PPN No. 6 (Section 6), which states that any residential development will be of the highest standards, consistent with; ‘maintaining reasonable standards of space…. inside and around buildings and light and air appropriate to the type of accommodation provided and the character of the local area’. Reason 3 not only discusses external light and ventilation but it also sets out the concern for the size of the rooms and the size of the garden which is measured at 29.6m2, just below the 30m2 recommended amenity space provision. Its location would leave an uncomfortable arrangement of outside space, and no boundary treatment has been specified to partition the two gardens. An adjacent site The agent refers to an adjacent site, south of No.19. The only history found for a similar application was a proposal for a new garage with a bedroom above, at a property called ‘Rosebank', approved under the 1987 Island Plan, in June 1994, located south of No. 19. This is not however a proposal for a new unit and is not therefore comparable. The agent has yet to confirm whether this is the site he refers to in his letter. It is not considered that the agent has provided a sufficient case for this application to be looked upon favourably. The information given for the application was inaccurate and the proposed unit is considered too cramped in terms of the proposed internal space and the proposed external space, and its proximity and relationship with the existing house. | 
gov.je