AN appeal lodged against a decision to refuse plans to build a two-bedroom house along a busy St Brelade road has been dismissed.
Environment Minister John Young maintained the view that the home, which would have been built in the rear garden of the property Silicia along Rue du Pont Marquet, would have resulted in a ‘cramped over-development of the site’.
The original application was refused earlier this year because of its ‘unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses’ and inability to provide ‘satisfactory parking or landscape requirements’. It was also thought that the proposal would have led to an intensification of the use of the site and the ‘narrow access lanes and junction with the main road’.
The scheme received a number of public comments, submitted to the government’s Planning website, expressing concerns and objections to the project and its impact on neighbouring properties.
MS Planning, on behalf of applicants Gary and Eileen White, submitted an appeal against the refusal. It argued that the site had a general presumption in favour of new residential development and that more consideration should have been given to that fact.
The appellants also said that the approval of the proposals ‘would not result in a significant intensification of its use and the need to address the housing shortage should carry greater weight in this instance’.
They added: ‘The siting and size of the proposed development would not cause unreasonable harm to any of the neighbours either by reason of loss of privacy or loss of sunlight or daylight. Because the site is located in the built-up area, where new development is encouraged, there must be some expectation of impact on neighbours, but so long as it is not unreasonable. In this case it comes nowhere near being unreasonable.’
However, the appeal was dismissed. In a decision notice, published on the Planning website, Deputy Young said: ‘The Environment Minister agreed with the recommendation of the independent planning inspector, Mr G Self, and agreed that the reasons for refusal should be modified as follows – the proposal would result in a cramped over-development of the site which would have an undesirably harmful impact on the appearance and character of the area, contrary to policies GD1 and GD6 of the Bridging Island Plan; and the proposal would intensify the use of the access road and its junction with the main road, Rue du Pont Marquet. Visibility at this junction does not meet the requirements of the highway authority and the development would unacceptably increase the risk of accidents.’
