A FORMER Bailiff has successfully appealed a decision to refuse his plans to turn a barn at his Grouville property into accommodation – marking the end of a back-and-forth planning saga that included debate about how much “additional loading” the public sewer can handle.
Going against the recommendation of a planning inspector, St Brelade Constable Mike Jackson has upheld the appeal by Sir William Bailhache relating to an application to alter a granite outbuilding at his Seymour House property.
In February, the plans – to form a two bedroom unit of accommodation and install solar panels – were recommended for refusal by planning officer Barry James.
Mr James stated that, among other factors, the proposal did not show “a high quality of design that conserves, protects and contributes positively to the distinctiveness of the built environment, landscape and wider setting”.
He also concluded that it “fails to protect the special interest and setting” of the Seymour House, which is a grade-three listed building.
Additionally, Mr James said the application hadn’t demonstrated how biodiversity “will be protected or improved”, or whether the public foul sewer would have “sufficient capacity to receive the additional loading associated with the increase in occupancy of the property”.
The plans were refused in April – a decision that Sir William appealed against.
He described the application as one that “cries out for an approval” and outlined a number of points, including that the proposal “obviously does not affect the listed building directly”.
“The view from the public road of the listed property after any development as proposed would be as good as previously,” Sir William stated.
“The reasons for listing would not be adversely affected in any way. On the contrary, it might be said that the developed setting was an improvement.”
Additionally, he contended that “it cannot seriously be suggested that the proposed development does not respect the landscape or seascape character of the area”.
“This is a residential area opposite the sea. With this development, it would still be so,” Sir William added.
He also went on to note that objections on biodiversity grounds should be related to the site, which he said was “not a site of special interest”.
“It is not within the Ramsar site. It is categorised under the transport provisions of the Bridging Plan as ‘suburban’,” he continued.
Sir William also took issue with the comments regarding the public foul sewer and “additional loading”.
In correspondence regarding a previous iteration of the application, he had argued: “Is it really suggested that a drainage modelling assessment is necessary to show the public sewer has sufficient capacity to cope with two additional bathrooms?
“If the public sewer is so stressed that two bathrooms could make a difference, the Island is in a seriously challenged state and no further development in Grouville or St Clement should be allowed at all – and ministers should tell the public that before they waste money with their architects drawing up plans.”
Although planning inspector David Hainsworth recommended the appeal be dismissed, it was upheld by Mr Jackson – subject to several conditions.
This included that a preliminary ecological appraisal must be undertaken before development commences and that a drainage statement be submitted and approved.
“No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied until the requisite drainage works, including the connection to the public foul sewer, is completed in accordance with the approved plans,” the condition noted.
The decision notice also explained that: “The Assistant Minister has considered the material provided by both parties in respect of the inspector’s consideration of the potential use of conditions at the appeal hearing to inform his decision to uphold the appeal and to grant conditional planning permission.”
