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 objectives of the North of Town Masterplan, the site is considered to be of strategic importance and a vital element of the emerging regeneration initiative.
1.Application Number | P/2011/0685 |
2.Site Address | Ann Street Brewery, Ann Street, St. Helier. |
| |
3.Applicant | Comprop (CI) Limited |
| |
4.Description | Demolition of brewery storage facility and removal of metal gantry bridging Ann Street. Construction of detached 4 / 5 storey building to include basement comprising 18 apartments. Model Available. |
| |
5.Type | Planning |
| |
6.Date Validated | 23/05/2011 |
| |
7. Zones & Constraints | Built-Up Area Town Map Area Action Area 6 Island Route Network Sec |
Summary Department Recommendation | The application seeks permission to clear the site of the present structures which were ancillary to the main Brewery, and erect a building containing 18 apartments (17 x 2-bed units and 1 x 1-bed unit) arranged over four floors, on a half-basement level of car parking. Whilst the proposal is architecturally competent and interesting, the Department have a strong concern about the relationship of the building to the character of the area. The style and presentation does not sit comfortably with the objectives of the North of St Helier Masterplan, or the Urban Character Appraisal, which both advocate a more ‘traditional’ approach to reinforce the predominant characteristics of the area. The scale of the building raises concerns in relation to impacts on neighbours, and importantly the access is considered to be deficient in relation to T&TS technical requirements. Further, the Department are not satisfied that the provision of amenity space is sufficient in relation to the quality or quantum required by the usual Standards. As is also set out in this Report the Department have additional concerns about the ground level interface with the street, and have not received a suitable justification in relation to the loss of employment land, neither does the mix of units accord with the latest housing needs information, which favours family housing. Taking all these factors into account, the application cannot be supported. Refuse |
8.Site Description & Existing Use | The application site is occupied by a detached single storey commercial / industrial building. Within the north-western boundary of the application site there is an open parking area with access onto Belmont Road The former Jersey Brewery (58-60 Ann Street) is situated directly opposite the application site, along the eastern side of Ann Street. To the west of the site is a terrace of modest two storey houses with small private gardens which face onto the application site. To the rear of the northernmost dwelling is ‘Jersey Dive’, a small single storey, flat roofed commercial unit which fronts onto Belmont Road. To the north of the application site, on the opposite side of Belmont Road, in the main are terraces of three storey Victorian premises predominantly in use for residential purposes. Although there are variations, these form a strong architectural language which adds to the character of the location. |
9. Proposed Development | The application seeks permission to clear the site and erect a building containing 18 apartments (17 x 2-bed units and 1 x 1-bed unit) arranged over four floors, on a half-basement level of car parking. |
10. Relevant Planning History | There is no material planning history. |
11. Consultations | (include a summary of recommendation from consultees) as appropriate) TTS (Drainage) in their response of 19 July 2011 confirm that the public foul sewers have the capacity for the development. Environmental Protection in their letter dated 18th July 2011 note that a desk top study has been undertaken for this site and require further intrusive investigations prior to development commencing. They also request that a construction environmental management plan (CEMP), should be produced to protect the environment during construction, and that the content of the waste management plan is linked by condition to any permit. Parish of St Helier in their response of 15 June 2011 comment that: - One parking space per unit and 14 bicycle spaces is accepted.
- A refuse strategy to include separation, recycling and re-use should be developed in conjunction with the Parish.
The Parish also provide guidance on the delivery / reinstatement of pavements. TTS (Highways) in their comments dated 9th August 2011 have raised concerns as follows: - The 1:5 section of ramp is not considered to be an acceptable gradient for an internal ramp. It would also be too steep for pedestrian use.
- The access ramp is 2.8m wide. Based on the Departments Technical Guidelines a shared pedestrian / vehicular access serving a development of between 5 and 12 dwellings is required to be 4.8m wide. 18 apartments with 19 parking spaces falls within this category. The ramp / pedestrian access would not therefore meet the required standard.
- Each side of the access requires a 4m radius to allow vehicles to enter and exit without swinging out across the oncoming lane of traffic. The corner of the proposed planter to the west side of the access must be rounded accordingly. The extent of the dropped kerbs to each side of the access must also coincide with these radii.
Planning Policy and Projects, in their response of 22 July 2011, raise concerns in relation to: - The architectural approach is not supported in the North of Town Masterplan, as it fails to acknowledge the grain, character and proportions of the area;
- The densities are relatively high, leading to potential issues in relation to impacts on neighbouring properties by virtue of scale and overlooking;
- The Housing Needs Survey supports housing rather than apartments;
- The Masterplan requires a 12.5% affordable housing contribution and the Masterplan suggests that this should be immediate, and include contributions to a new hopper bus service and public realm improvements.
Historic Environment in their response of 25 July 2011 note the property is directly opposite the Listed Brew House, and in the vicinity of other potential Listed Buildings on Belmont Road and Ann Street. They express concerns in relation to: - The scale, mass and architectural style being out of character with the context of the site;
- The basement car park removes any opportunity for an active street interface;
- The site is outside a specific Area of Archaeological Potential but a watching brief is recommended.
All consultations are attached with the background papers |
12. Representations | Five letters of representation have been received, all objecting to the application for the following reasons: - the building would be too high especially in relation to the adjoining terrace of residential houses;
- loss of light and privacy to the rear of properties;
- significantly higher than anything in the locality and would have a negative impact;
- the proposed footpath and communal space would be adjacent to and overlook properties fronting Belmont Gardens and could result in youths congregating, creating a nuisance and making properties vulnerable;
- noise and disturbance during construction;
- the bin storage area adjacent to residential premises would result in noise during collections, smells and vermin;
- the boundary wall to the east constitutes a party wall free from any encumbrance yet the developer intends to demolish it;
- residents have worked hard to own property adjoining the site and it is deeply unfair that homes and investment could so easily be compromised;
- Belmont Road is a ring road and basement parking has not been permitted in the past;
- Congestion;
- Inconsistencies in the plans especially on the western elevation;
- These are narrow roads with traffic difficulties;
- The elevated gardens would be overbearing and result in loss of privacy to the rear of Belmont Gardens;
- Out of character with 1930’s terraced houses and surrounding town houses.
National Trust for Jersey also submitted a representation and requested that an archaeological investigation should be conducted prior to any building works. The agent has submitted a letter in response to the above representations, dated 29 June 2011. It provides a detailed response, under topic headings, to the points raised in the submitted representations. The letter is enclosed with the background papers. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers. |
13. Planning Assessment a)Policy Considerations | In relation to site-specific policy designations, the proposal is within the Built Up Area and in its broadest sense is considered to comply with the spatial objectives set out in Policies SP1, SP2 and SP6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. As the site is within the Built-Up Area, 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 19 spaces for 18 units. The proposal is within an area where the usual standard is 1 space per unit, plus visitor provision. In relation to amenity space, each unit has a private balcony or terrace. The scale of these varies across the proposal. There is also a landscaped area to the west, which whilst providing some greenery, is not really private as it is adjacent to the primary pedestrian access to the premises, and is more incidental space about the building. In quantitative and qualitative terms the provision is well below the usual minimum levels. 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. The key issue is the excavation of the basement and a series of options are considered in an outline document to be taken forward by the principal Contractor. It is noted that the premises were last used for employment-generating activities and the application contains no submission in relation to the requirements of Policy E1. The feedback from the Historic Environment Team expresses a concern about the impact of the proposal on the setting of the primary Brewery Listed Building and it considered that the proposal does reflect the existing grain, scale and mass of the immediate context. Given this position, it is considered that the application does not accord with Policy HE1. The mix of housing units is considered by Policy H4 and the response from Policy and Projects expresses concern about the absence of family units, as identified in the Housing Needs Survey. 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 proposal is for a large single building and the ‘expression’ of this form in this location is a concern. In particular the presentation of the scale is horizontal and the predominant character of the area is traditionally proportioned and vertically presented. Additionally, the building effectively wraps two sides of a triangular site and the scale has potentially detrimental impacts on the immediate neighbours, both in relation to the setting of the primary Brewery building, and the adjacent residential properties. |
c) Architectural Design and Use of Materials | At the pre-application stage the proposal was presented to the Jersey Architecture Commission, as part of a wider indicative proposal for the wider former Jersey Brewery site. The feedback from the Commission only included one sentence in relation to this element of the wider proposal, being: “The proposed ‘Mendelsohn’ type four storey residential block with sweeping balconies on the west side of Ann Street was welcomed’ The submitted Design Statement presents the proposal as a simple and delightful modernist building, with a gently undulating façade and wavy car park base giving the impression of an ocean liner in sea swell. This concept is noted and the presentation understood, however, the Design Statement does not reference the character and form of the immediate or wider areas, and the design is considered to be lacking in relevance to its context. |
d) Impact In the Landscape/Street | The North St Helier Masterplan, was adopted as full Supplementary Planning Guidance in June 2011. This sets out that one of the key requirements of delivering a successful masterplan is to derive elevations which work with the Georgian system of proportions. The intension is not to be overly prescriptive, but to illustrate the grain and character of the area and to enable this to be developed into a more contemporary expression. The application is not considered to meet this objective. The same issues are reviewed in the St Helier Urban Character Appraisal, which considers the site within Area 9, within which the Objectives are noted as including to “maintain and enhance the residential scale and character of the area”. As with the earlier commentary, the building itself is a competent architectural composition, but its position in this street context is not considered to be appropriate. Although the proposal does deliver a pedestrian link from Belmont Place to Belmont Road, this is not considered to be a significant gain, and indeed passes the rear service elements of the site, so fails to provide much to attract users. It is also notable that the car parking is a half-basement level, so that the primary pedestrian level street interface will be to a relatively blank wall over 2m in height and containing the car park vents. This is not considered to be a positive addition to the vitality and viability of the street. |
| |
e) Impact on Neighbours | Although the mass of the proposed structure is stepped away from the most sensitive site boundaries, there remains a concern about the height in relation to the neighbours to the west in Belmont Gardens where the height and mass of the building are considered to be overbearing and detrimental to their amenities. |
f) Access, Car Parking & Highways Considerations | The provision of car parking is considered acceptable in relation to the number of spaces, but as identified by T&TS Highways in their consultation response, the access to the basement is considered deficient in relation to its excessive gradient, its limited width for the number of units it is to serve, and the geometry of the access to the road which means that vehicles have to swing onto the opposing carriageway. This is not an acceptable situation. |
g) Foul Sewage & Surface Water Disposal | All to mains |
| |
h) Landscaping | The landscape proposal includes an indication of structural planting to the internal courtyard areas, the access and the roadside. In itself the planting will add to the setting of the building and compliment the architectural concept, but the areas which are to be planted (as considered earlier) are not sufficient in relation to their required size to represent adequate amenity space. |
i) Archaeology | The property is not within an Area of Archaeological Potential, but both the National Trust and the Historic Environment team raise comments in this regard. It would therefore be appropriate to include a archaeological watching brief. |
j)Waste Management | As considered above, the application includes an outline Waste Management Plan, confirming the approach to reduce, reuse and recycle waste. |
k)Planning Obligations & Percent for Art | The application proposes a Percentage for Art installation as inset glass panels around the brise soleil. As noted in the consultation response from Planning Policy and Projects, the North of St Helier Masterplan requires a 12.5% affordable housing contribution. However, this is not being implemented in advance of the approval of the Supplementary Planning Guidance required by Policy H3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Notwithstanding this position, the applicant has not made any reference to the other objectives within the Masterplan to include contributions to a new hopper bus service and public realm improvements. |
l)Contaminated Land | As considered above, in the feedback from Environmental Protection, the submitted desktop study will need to be followed by intrusive investigations prior to development commencing. |
m) Sustainability | The policy review above considers that in its broadest sense the application is considered to comply with the spatial objectives set out in the Island Plan, which primarily focuses new development in the urban areas of St Helier, and seeks to achieve the best use of previously developed land. |
14. Conclusion | Whilst the proposal is architecturally competent and interesting, the Department have a strong concern about the relationship of the building to the character of the area. The style and presentation does not sit comfortably with the objectives of the North of St Helier Masterplan, or the Urban Character Appraisal, which both advocate a more ‘traditional’ approach to reinforce the predominant characteristics of the area. The scale of the building raises concerns in relation to impacts on neighbours, and importantly the access is considered to be deficient in relation to T&TS Highways requirements. Further, the Department are not satisfied that the provision of amenity space is sufficient in relation to the quality or quantum required by the usual Standards. As is also set out in this Report the Department have additional concerns about the ground level interface with the street, and have not received a suitable justification in relation to the loss of employment land or the mix of housing units. Taking all these factors into account, the application cannot be supported. |
| |
15. Department Recommendation | Refuse |
16. Reasons
1. The proposed form, scale, detailed design and external appearance would be out of keeping with the area, would be detrimental to the ground level street interface, and would not respect the setting of nearby Listed and potential Listed Buildings. In this regard the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of the approved North St Helier Masterplan and the provisions of Policies SP7, GD1, GD7 and HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and the North St Helier Masterplan.
2. The development, by virtue of its height, scale and mass, would result in an overbearing relationship with the neighbouring properties to the west in Belmont Gardens. In this regard the proposal fails to accord with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
3. The proposal fails to provide a safe or adequate vehicular access as the arrangements are considered deficient in relation to the gradient of the ramp, the width of the ramp and the geometry of the junction with Belmont Road, and as such the proposal fails to accord with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
4. The proposal fails to provide adequate amenity space for the prospective occupiers as the provision is deficient in relation to both quantity and quality, as such it fails to accord with the provisions of the approved Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 6 and the provisions of Policy H6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
5. The application has failed to provide a justification for a development which results in the loss of land for employment use, and as such the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Policy E1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
6. The application is for predominantly 2-bed apartments and fails to contribute to the identified housing need for 3-bed family houses, and as such the proposal fails to accord with the provisions of Policy H4 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
17. Reason for Approval | n/a |
| |
18. Background Papers | - Location plan
- consultation responses
- letters of representation
- feedback from applicant
|
| |
Endorsed by: | Date: |
| |
gov.je