APPLICATIONS seeking retrospective permission for planning amendments are judged on “merit” and assessed “in the same way as any other application”, the Planning Department has insisted amid suggestions that its enforcement powers are not sufficient.
The government has defended its process for handling post-hoc planning applications after residents in Grouville voiced their disapproval towards an application requesting retrospective permission to build a property several feet higher than previously agreed.
In a design statement, Riva Architects listed seven “retrospective proposals” in relation to the controversial construction directly overlooking the Royal Jersey Golf Course.
“The complexities involved in the procurement of a viable building contract to deliver the project have unfortunately brought about the retrospective nature of this application,” the firm explained.
Included among the set of proposals is an increase in roof height to the two-storey part of the house that stands just behind the first tee.
The change is explained as resulting from the installation of an “internal lift” within the living areas to meet “Lifetime Home requirements”.
Also stated to have contributed to the increase in height is a “parapet design” to conceal several “photovoltaic panels” from public view.
In addition, a further retrospective request seeks permission for the “roof parapet” over the single-story living area to be increased in order to accommodate an “intensive green roof with indigenous planting”.
The architectural firm noted that while the “heights have indeed had to be adjusted to meet technical demands”, the “basic massing to the development remains unaltered”.
It was stated in the original planning application from December 2023 that neighbouring properties had been “specifically considered” ahead of approval being granted.
But the retrospective planning application has now attracted over 20 public comments from local residents criticising the “significant” amendments since made to the property.
Islander Sarah Arora wrote on 2 October that “keeping to the height on the original plans would be the best option we could hope for at this point”.
“They should not be able to receive approval for changes once the building’s already been built,” she argued. “We shouldn’t set a precedent for this being allowed.”
Lucy Shuttleworth added that a “wider principle” was at stake.
“If developers are permitted to construct beyond an approved height or otherwise materially alter an approved design and subsequently seek retrospective permission, this risks undermining the planning process,” she argued.
“Allowing a substantially altered building to be constructed and then regularised retrospectively risks creating the impression that an applicant can effectively build first and seek permission afterwards.”
Echoing Ms Shuttleworth, parishioner David Minty accused the developers of “trying to exploit [the planning department’s] lack of enforcement appetite and capability”.
However, in a statement provided to the JEP, the Planning Department denied being unable to clamp down on developers assuming permission for unauthorised alterations.
It states: “Retrospective permission is not granted automatically.
“Where an application is refused, the Development and Land Compliance Team will consider whether enforcement action is appropriate, taking account of the specific circumstances and any actual or potential harm arising from the development.
“The Planning and Building Law provides a range of enforcement powers to address unauthorised development including stop notices, injunctions, prosecutions and enforcement notices.”
The department maintained that retrospective applications “are assessed on their planning merits in the same way as another application”.
“The fact that work has already been carried out is not a material consideration in the decision-making process”, the statement adds.
The statement adds: “Retrospective applications are subject to fees that are double the standard planning application fee.
The actual figure of retrospective applications is a low percentage of overall applications each year.
“This includes applications to pass historical conditions of planning control and breaches of planning.”
