Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01.08.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Lynwood 8, Parade Road, St. Helier.

Subject:	Lynwood 8, Parade Road, St. Helier Request for reconsideration of refusal of planning permission. Proposed development to rear of existing building to provide 1 new 2 bedroom unit of accommodation.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0191	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/2218
Written Report Title:	Proposed development to rear of existing building to provide 1 new 2 bedroom unit of accommodation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Refusal Upheld
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify applicant of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 01.08.06

Lynwood 8, Parade Road, St. Helier - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/2218

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Lynwood 8, Parade Road, St. Helier.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. E G Voisin	Agent

Description	Proposed development to rear of existing building to provide 1 new 2 bedroom unit of accommodation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. The proposed development by virtue cramp parking arrangement and lack of manouvering space provides insufficient car-parking, contrary to the Minister for Planning and Environment Planning Policy Note No.3 'Parking Guidelines, 1988'. 2. The proposed development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a buildings which are cramped resulting in poor quality amenity space for the two properties on the site and is close to neighbouring boundaries, which is harmful to the occupiers of neighbouring property to the southeast contrary to Policy G2 (ii) and (v), and Policy H8 (ii), (v) and (viii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	30/03/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area Green Backdrop Zone Building Of Local Interest

Policies	G2 - General Development Considerations G13 - Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest BE10 - Green Backdrop Zone H8 - Housing Development within the Built-Up Area

Recommendation

Maintain refusal.

Comments on Case	There is no presumption against the principle of the proposed dwelling within the Built-Up Area. The site makes no contribution to the appearance of the landscape forming the Green Backdrop Zone. The development at the rear of this property will result in the site becoming more intensively used due to the additional unit (1 No. four bed house exists and an additional 1 No, 2-bed house is proposed). The size, scale and siting is not harmful to the amenity of neighbouring properties. However, the additional windows facing southeast will increase overlooking prejudice although an overlooking prejudice does exist from existing windows. This part of the refusal is a balanced judgement given that only three additional bedroom windows (the fourth is a bathroom window) will face the neighbouring property albeit at only 7250mm from the boundary. The scheme is considered acceptable to the Design & Conservation Section. Consideration of the “Reasons for Refusal” as set out in the applicant’s letter: Item 1 - Car Parking 2 spaces currently exist on-site. 3 are required for the existing house but it would be unreasonable to retrospectively provide the additional space. 2 additional spaces are required for the new dwelling. The required 4 spaces are proposed. However, the Department maintains that the parking area is cramped. No individual parking space has sufficient manouvering space if the other spaces are in use. The manouvering is so tight on site that the pivot point of the gates needs to be moved (Historic Buildings Officer has agreed) to the rear of the pillars. Whilst the width of the access is not to change, and the width of the property is greater than others in the street, it is difficult to see how space No.3 can be accessed and space No. 1 (retained with space No. 2 for the main house) is totally dependant upon the car in space No. 2 being moved in order to exit the site. To provide four spaces that are easily accessible, it is likely that most of the railings would need to be removed however; this is likely to be considered as harmful to the setting of the Building of Local Interest and the streetscape. Item 2 – Overdevelopment of the Site The applicant is correct in stating that the proposed dwelling meets and the existing dwelling meets the Minister’s minimum standards with regard to amenity space (80m2 and 50m2 respectively). At present the existing 4-bed house has approximately 150m2 of amenity space and ancillary outbuildings. Whilst the development may meet the minimum (for the existing house) amenity space standards it is not considered that this is sufficient for a four bedroom family dwelling. This is particularly the case on this site because the quality of the 50m2 or 80m2 spaces would be limited due to the entire area being enclosed by tall walls and the house, and as a result of a degree of overlooking that exists from the existing dwelling. No. 9 Parade Road. It is incorrect to state that the neighbouring property is a precedent. This building was already 2 separate units and the reasonable extension allowed a significant improvement in the living accommodation for the second unit. It is correct that this resulted in the loss of some of the amenity area. However, as with No. 8, the amenity spaces of these properties is limited unless they are of a significant size. Whilst the Department could not reasonably refuse an extension to an existing dwelling at No 9, it is reasonable to refuse the creation of a new dwelling at No.8. Contrary to the applicant’s letter, one accessible space does exist at No.9. This was approved after the extension was built and reflects the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964 that required permission to be granted for reasonable access despite the loss of the front garden and part of the railings.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from applicant dated 30th May 2006. Consultation responses from: The Parish (No objection), T & TS Drainage (No drainage details have been submitted. Further details required) and the Design and Conservation Section. Letter from agent dated 20/01/06.

Endorsed by		Date