Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (25/11/2008) regarding: Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade - Planning Permission.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008-0281			Application Number: P/2007/2055 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade		Date of Decision Summary:		11 December 2008
Decision Summary Author:	A Townsend		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Oral and Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		A Townsend
Written Report Title:	Planning and Environment Dept Report		Date of Written Report:		12 May 2008
Written Report Author:	A Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt?		Public
Subject: Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade Construct 3 No. 4 bed dwellings and 1 No. 5 bed dwelling. AMENDED PLANS: Changes to layout and dwellings, including heights and positions.
Decision(s): The Minister considered the application at a public meeting on 20 May, concluding that he accepted the principle of the development subject to details, including addressing overlooking concerns to the north and west, requiring supervision by Hopkins Architects, and resolution of a Percentage for Art contribution. The applicant has now confirmed a Percentage for Art proposal, engaged one of the Minister’s accepted advisers, and confirmed arrangements to involve Hopkins Architects in the finalisation of the design drawings, and throughout construction. This will include resolving the overlooking issues to the north and west to the satisfaction of the Minister. It was therefore concluded that all of the details requested by the Minister when his original decision was made, had been addressed and that Planning Permission could be granted. The decision was therefore confirmed on 25 November 2008, and a Permit issued.
Reason(s) for Decision: 1. The extent of the authorised residential curtilage of each of the units shall be agreed with the Minister, prior to the occupation of any of the units hereby approved. Reason: In allowing the development, the Minister has been keen to ensure that the natural appearance and character of the majority of the site is maintained and in some areas reinstated. It is essential to ensure that a manicured domestic appearance is not introduced into these areas and that the residential curtilages of each of these units is minimised. The design of the units intentionally seeks to provide for amenity space within the building without the need for additional outdoor garden areas. 2. Before any works commence on site a Landscaping Scheme and Landscape Management Plan shall be submitted by Townshend Landscape Architects for the whole of the site and agreed in writing by the Minister following consultation with the Environment Division. This shall include a written methodology for a survey to identify species protected by the Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000, which shall be agreed with the Environment Division. That survey shall be carried out to the satisfaction of the Environment Division, and works to protect any wildlife identified, agreed with the Minister in consultation with the Environment Division. Reason; To ensure the protection, reinstatement where necessary, and future management of the natural landscape around each of the buildings in the interest of the character and appearance of the area and the maintenance of existing vegetation and habitats. 3. Prior to the commencement of any works on site maximum working areas around each plot and around the proposed road shall be agreed with the Minister. These must minimise the area of the site which is subject to any building works or disruption during the construction of the development. Building work and the storage of equipment shall only be allowed within these authorised areas and no development works including any relevelling, any construction, or the storage or burning of any materials are allowed outside these areas. Reason: To ensure that the development causes the minimum possible disruption of the existing landscape. 4. The glass used throughout the buildings shall be non-reflective. Reason; The design of the building includes large areas of glass, and to avoid these appearing intrusive, and to help the buildings assimilate into the landscape, it is important that the glass is non-reflective. 5.: Before any works commence on site a Construction Management Plan shall be agreed with the Minister illustrating precisely how the buildings will be constructed with due consideration for the existing landscape and habitats. Reason: As Condition 3 above. 6. No development shall take place during the green lizard breeding season and no development shall be allowed to harm any green lizard habitat. Reason; To avoid any disruption or harm to the environment or habitat of the green lizard. 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2008,or any amendment to or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure, tank, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. Reason ; The specific design of these houses has been designed to reflect the sensitivity of this site. The Minister wishes to control any future development of any part of the site to ensure that development does not in any way harm the character of the area or any habitat. 8. This Permit shall not be implemented in whole or part combination with any other Permit relating to this site, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister. Reason: This site has been the subject of previous Planning Permissions, but this scheme has been submitted as an alternative to all of those Permissions, and has only been permitted on the basis that it shall not be implemented either in whole or part combination which would lead to additional development of the site and/or development of a quality which would not be compatible with this development or the Minister's requirements. 9. The Architect, Design Plus, shall be retained throughout the construction process until occupation of the units. Moreover, Hopkins Architects shall be retained to advise the Department on final design details and throughout construction. All drawn details must be to their satisfaction, and all construction undertaken in accordance with those details to the satisfaction of Hopkins Architects. Those details shall include adjustments to the scheme to address overlooking issues to the west and north to the satisfaction of the Minister. Hopkins Architects shall work with the schemes architect and report to the Minister. All fees will be recharged to the applicant. Reason: To ensure that the design principles are carried through and that the overlooking issues noted are addressed satisfactorily, all to the satisfaction of the Minister. 10. Prior to commencement of construction, a Percentage for Art contribution to the value set out in the submitted Percentage For Art Statement, shall be agreed with one of the Minister's nominated advisers and confirmed by the Minister. The agreed work shall then be completed on site to the satisfaction of the Minister before any of the units is occupied. Reason: To ensure the creation of a piece of public art in accordance with Policy BE12 of the Island Plan. 11. The buildings shall be constructed to meet the requirements of the U.K. Building Regulations with regard to energy efficiency. Reason: The development has been permitted on the basis of the high quality of design including the promised high levels of energy efficiency. To ensure that the development achieves the standards submitted, it shall comply with current U.K. Building Regulations.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties already notified
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 25 November 2008

Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade - Planning Permission.

Site Visit

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

P/2007/2055

Site Address	Le Chalet Hotel Site, La Rue de la Corbiere, St. Brelade.

Applicant	Mr E Caldeira Design Plus Limited

Description	Construct 3 No. 4 bed dwellings and 1 No. 5 bed dwelling. AMENDED PLANS: Changes to layout and dwellings, including heights and positions.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	29/08/2007

Zones	Zone of Outstanding Character

Policies	G2 –General Development Considerations G3 – Quality of Design C4 – Zone of Outstanding Character

Reason for Referral	MINISTER CALL-IN

Summary/

Conclusion

The site lies within the Zone of Outstanding Character wherein there is a presumption against development. However, this is not a virgin site. The site was previously occupied by a hotel together with outbuildings providing additional accommodation, and a separate property known as Fram Cottage.

Planning Permission has also been granted in the past for extensions to, and ultimately the redevelopment of the original hotel which included a substantial increase in floor area and mass, in providing 40 self-catering units with basement car parking. Planning Permission has also been granted for the redevelopment of Fram Cottage.

The current application is therefore put forward as an alternative proposal for redeveloping the site. It proposes residential use, and in contrast to the previous Permission, spreads the development more thinly across the site. Whilst there is an argument to suggest that the development should be confined to the previously developed part of the site, it is important to note that buildings were already spread across the site to some extent. There is also the arguable benefit of breaking up the bulk of the previous approval into smaller buildings.

The Department’s view is that the proposed development is of a much higher quality, less imposing, and more sensitive to the character of this particular site and its surroundings than the previous, extant Planning Permission.

Amended plans have been submitted to reduce the apparent scale of the building and any impact on adjoining properties by lowering the buildings further into the ground, and setting Unit B further back into the site.

A number of Conditions are recommended to ensure that the development is undertaken as shown in the drawings, and that any impact of the surrounding headland is minimised.

Officer

Recommendation

APPRVOAL

Site Description	The site originally comprised a hotel, which for many years had been derelict, with an associated car park, two guest chalet buildings, a single storey staff accommodation block and a separate dwelling known as Fram or Fram Cottage. The hotel closed in October 1997. The hotel buildings have now been demolished.

Relevant Planning History	The site has a long planning history and that most relevant is set out in the attached Appendix to the previous application P/2003/2455. That application (P/2003/2455) proposed the redevelopment of the hotel and the area of the previously approved extension, to create 40 self-catering apartments, a manager’s flat and car parking. The existing staff accommodation and one chalet would have been demolished. A subsequent Request for Reconsideration of that requirement was turned down. Since then Planning Permission has been granted in principle for the construction of a 4 bedroom dwelling in place of Fram Cottage, and for a post and rail fence around part of the site. An application for an extension to the approved self catering scheme including a health spa, was refused on the basis the extension, in combination with the development already approved, would be detrimental to the character of the area.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Former hotel site with ancillary accommodation and separate dwelling, with Planning Permission for redevelopment for 40 self-catering units.

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Residential development of 4 dwellings.

Consultations	Tourism - in their response of 3 September note that the hotel ceased to be registered at the end of 1997, and as such the Department cannot comment on this application. TTS (Drainage) in their comments of 7 September note that foul sewers are available and raise no objection. TTS (Highways) in their comments of 19 September note that the Department requires that the bank to the east of the access be lowered to match that on the west side to improve visibility. It is noted however that this land lies outside the applicant’s ownership. The Environment Department in their comments of 12 November raised a number of concerns. It is suggested in the application that the buildings will be constructed from natural materials, but in fact most of the façades are in glass. A large part of the hillside is left open and it is important to maintain the natural rock outcrops and flora. How will the expansion of gardens be prevented and how will this area be managed? How will existing flora and wildlife be protected? If the buildings were constructed lower on the site, the impact on the skyline would be less. The Environment Department subsequently made comments on the amended plans in their response of 17 April. It is suggested that the original concerns remain and it is asked that:- The skyline should be kept free of development. Non-reflective glass should be used. Mitigation is required to protect the wildlife under the Conservation of Wildlife (Jersey) Law 2000. Native vegetation must be retained. Domestic curtilage must be kept to a minimum. A Construction Method Statement is required to ensure the retention of the natural landscape. Parish of St Brelade – no comments received All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	8 letters of objection have been received, including 3 from one address. These raise issues including:- There is no existing access at point E shown on drawing DP0608-150. The driveway is in the ownership of the Seagrove Apartments, and terminates at the site boundary. House D replaces two small chalets which were previously proposed to be removed. House A will lead to a loss of privacy and outlook from adjacent properties. Where will soakaways be located? Unsuitable design. Additional traffic on a dangerous stretch of road. Site Notice not displayed properly. Inaccuracies on drawings. Houses are multi storey and not “ground hugging” nor do they blend in. There is no restriction included on landscaping or alterations to the landscape outside the footprint of the houses. The size and scale of buildings is disproportionate to a Green Zone and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. (Sic). Loss of privacy to properties to the north and west. The development includes building on Field 424 which the States brought in 1986 to prevent development. This is an example of the erosion of the Green Zone. The proposals will be over-dominant especially from below. House B should be further set back. The houses are enormous and significantly larger than the buildings they replace with the exception of that in place of the previous hotel. The headland will look like a continuous run of properties. The development will cover a much greater area of the site than the current approval. Loss of vegetation and habitat, especially due to the position of Plot B on undeveloped land. All letters of representation are attached with the background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations The site lies within the Zone of Outstanding Character wherein there is a presumption against development. This includes a presumption against the redevelopment of existing non-residential buildings for residential use unless significant environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area is achieved. It is important to note however that although most of the existing buildings on the site have now been demolished, this is not virgin land, and indeed there is an outstanding (extant) Planning Permission for the redevelopment of the site to create a large building comprising 40 self-catering apartments with associated car parking, plus the redevelopment of the detached house, Fram Cottage. The normal requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design) are also valid. Land Use Implications The proposals will change the usage of the site from its original tourism/residential use, and from its approved self-catering use. There is however no Planning Policy presumption in favour of retaining tourist accommodation, and the majority of other properties in the immediate vicinity are in residential use. A residential use of the site is therefore in principle, not inappropriate, and will significantly reduce activity on the site. Size, Scale and Siting The basis of the design is to construct exceptional buildings which site into the landscape, and include large balcony areas and areas of retractable glass to blur the distinction between interior and exterior. This is intended not only to reduce the apparent scale of the buildings and to make the most of their excellent views, but also enables the normal amenity requirements of the buildings to be achieved within the construction, therefore not requiring any separate external garden areas in the traditional sense. This means that the large part of the site will not be developed or altered allowing the natural character and contours of the site to be retained. As noted by the Environment Department however it is important that this is ensured both during construction and afterwards and Conditions are recommended to strictly control the area where any work can be undertaken both during construction and in the longer term. At the Minister’s request the Department has consulted with Hopkins Architects. The advice given was that there is arguably some logic in concentrating the development into one area where the original hotel was located. However, it is accepted that whilst this was the single largest building on the site, there were other buildings which did spread across the site, including Fram. The architect has intentionally spread the buildings further across the site so as to reduce the scale of any one building on the site. Hopkins Architects’ advice is that this approach would be more successful if the buildings were set down further into the ground rather than sitting above it which, in the original set of application drawings led to large overhanging balcony areas. It was also recommended that the design could be simplified, although it was accepted that if use of the contours was to be made, then split levels may be needed. In response amended plans have been submitted which show the buildings now set further down into the ground reducing their apparent scale, particularly when viewed from the road below, and from the railway walk above. The buildings are very linear in form and very contemporary. It has been suggested they are largely single storey in form, although they do include more than one floor of accommodation. The design does however make good use of the contours of the site, and achieves a reduction in floor area from the original buildings. This means a significant reduction in floor area from the scheme which was previously approved, which extended the original floor area. Design and Use of Materials As noted above the design is bespoke for this site attempting to address the constraints and avoid the need for traditional garden areas. It is considered an exciting approach in a special location which is considered will be less imposing and dominant than the existing permission, and of a far higher quality. Materials include green roofs, stone walls in varying finishes, and large areas of glass. The Environment Department comments draw particular attention to the areas of glass and suggest that any glass shall be non-reflective, and this is recommended as a Condition of any Planning Permission. Impact on Neighbours It is considered that despite the nature of the buildings including their large balconies, that due to their position they will not have any significant overbearing or overlooking impact on properties to the east or west that could justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Unit B, which sits closest to the building on the road below, has been moved further back into the site and its design reconsidered to reduce the impact on adjacent properties. Given the current the previous and approved uses which were far more intensive, and the adjacent public footpath which could overlook this property, it is not considered that this development will result in such a detrimental impact on these buildings that could justify the refusal of Planning Permission. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations Adequate car parking is provided for each of the units. Transport and Technical Services request that visibility to the east be improved. However, this lies outside the applicant’s ownership and could not be required by Condition. Moreover, give that the development will result in a significant reduction in traffic generation to the site, is not considered that this could be a reasonable requirement of Planning Permission. Foul Sewage Disposal Foul sewer. Landscaping issues The retention of the existing character of the areas to the headland that will not be developed is a crucial issue in this particular case. This is discussed above and Conditions are attached requiring a Construction Management Plan, restricting residential curtilage, and avoiding construction during the green lizard breeding season, all as recommended by the Environment Department Other Material Considerations The development will involve areas of “cut and fill” where existing land is excavated. It is however proposed to re-use this material on site as shown on the application drawings. With all of the buildings demolished, their materials have already been disposed of elsewhere.

Officer Recommendation	APPROVE

Conditions/ Reasons	Definition of residential curtilage to prevent any external garden areas other than specified in this Permission. Landscape Management Plan for the future of the headland is required. Maximum working areas around each building and access roads to be agreed in advance. Non-reflective glass to be used. Construction Management Plan to be agreed. All development to avoid green lizard breeding season. Remove PD Permission not to be undertaken in combination with any other permit unless otherwise agreed

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan History Appendix Consultation responses from Tourism, TTS Drainage, TTS Highways and the Environment Department (2) All letters of representation

Endorsed by:

Date:

12 May 2008