Rocque Berg, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement: Planning Application considered by Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 8 April 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0040
Decision Summary Title	Planning Applications Panel – decisions considered by Minister		Date of Decision Summary:	8th April 2011.
Decision Summary Author:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written & Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment
Written Report Title	P/2010/0792 Report to PAP		Date of Written Report:	7 January 2011
Written Report Author:	Planning Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: P/2010/0792. Rocque Berg, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement. Proposed pool hall. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): The Minister resolved to MAINTAIN REFUSAL for the reasons set out in the Department Report dated 7 January 2011 and required a further reason for refusal in relation to the substandard architecture and detailing. The Minister also invited the applicant to resubmit a revised scheme which did not intrude into the agricultural field and which had been subject to prior consultation with the Department Architect. The additional reason for refusal is therefore: 4. The architectural design and detailing is considered substandard by reference to its excessive size, the lack of balance to the east elevation, the weak central focus to the south elevation, the lack of information in relation to rainwater goods and its unacceptable juxtaposition with the existing conservatory, as such the proposal would be contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan. The additional informative is therefore: The Department invite the applicant to resubmit a revised scheme which does not intrude into the agricultural field and which has been subject to prior consultation with the Department Architect.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister for Planning and Environment became aware that Planning Applications Panel (PAP) may not have been fully constituted for consideration of the above application and resolved to reconsider the application. The Minister considered all the information presented to the Planning Applications Panel. The decision to refuse permission has been upheld having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other materials considerations, including the consultations and representations received.
Resource Implications: There are no resource implications.
Action required: Issue notifications of the decision as appropriate.
Signature: Senator FE Cohen		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision

Rocque Berg, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement: Planning Application considered by Minister

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2010/0792

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Rocque Berg, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement, JE2 6FT.

Requested by	Mr. Roger Bale	Agent

Description	Proposed pool hall. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. Poor consideration has been given to the siting of the development. The site is located within the shoreline zone and would be contrary to Policy BE11 of the 2002 Island Plan, in which there is a presumption against new buildings or extensions which will fill undeveloped gaps or obstruct public views to the sea. 2. The proposed development would result in the permanent loss of part of Field 101C, an agricultural field and is contrary to Policy C13 of the 2002 Island Plan. 3. The proposed development would harm the character and setting of Rocque Berg which is included on the Minister for Planning and Environment's 'Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey' as a Building of Local Interest on the register, contrary to Policy G13 of the Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	09/09/2010

Zones	Building Of Local Interest Built-Up Area Shoreline Zone

Policies	BE11 – Shoreline Zone C13 – Safeguarding Farmland G13 – Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The application seeks permission for a pool house building, to the west of the Rocque Berg property in St Clement. The application was refused in September 2010, for the reasons stated earlier in this Report. The Department delegated report relating to this determination is included with the Panel Papers. By letter of 21 October 2010 the applicant wrote to the Department requesting that the determination is reconsidered. This letter is included with the Panel Papers. Initially the letter points out that the proposal is a reapplication of a previously approved scheme. The letter then responds directly to each of the reasons for refusal, with a case that can be summarised as: The proposal does not fill undeveloped gaps or obstruct public views, as it is a replacement building and is not visible from the public realm. Only part of the field is affected and the field contains no agricultural conditions. The principle of the work was accepted by the Historic Environment consultee, and if the impact on the Registered Building is maintained as a reason for refusal then this would be a contravention of Human Rights as it represents a curtailment of rights without prior discussion, consideration or agreement. In response, the Department’s case is set out on the same point-by-point basis. In relation to the planning history, there was a previous approval under application reference P/2001/1046. Which itself superseded permit reference 11371/W for an alternative pool house location. The subject permit lapsed in September 2004 and the applicant made no attempt to keep it ‘live’. Planning permits have a time limit to avoid historic consents being resurrected at a time when they would otherwise perhaps not have been granted permission. It is noteworthy that the 2001 permit was not assessed against the policies within the current Jersey Island Plan 2002, neither was the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 in effect. In relation to the applicants views on the reasons for refusal, the Department comment that: The proposed pool house does indeed replace an existing structure, being a domestic greenhouse. The existing greenhouse has a footprint of about 38 sq m, and the proposed pool house has a footprint of about 190 sq m, which is about 5 times the current structure. The pool house is also of a totally different form, in particular the increased size of the proposed roof, which will project about 4m above the current 2m boundary wall. The Department also contend that it is not accurate for the applicant to state that this is a replacement structure, as the greenhouse is not actually removed from the site, rather, it is just repositioned further to the west. There are limited public views between the foreshore and the sea, but the scale and form of the proposed structure will be visible south from the coast road across both Field 101A and north from the sea across the domestic curtilage / Field 101C. The Department accept that the impact on the Shoreline Zone is only moderate, however, the development will fill some of the gap, it will reduce the sense of openness and the provisions of Policy BE11 do not support this. Field 101C is agricultural land and the applicant acknowledges that part of the field will be lost. Although the element is small, the loss would be permanent and Policy C13 establishes a presumption against this. Although exceptions may be permitted, in this case no justification exists. Subject to compliance with other Policies, the proposed pool house could easily be reconfigured to fit within the existing domestic curtilage and completely avoid the incursion into the field. The issue of agricultural conditions is a matter for the Land Controls and Agricultural Developments section under the administration of the Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) ( Jersey ) Law 1974 and is not related to the determination of this planning application. The quote from the Historic Environment consultee in the applicants RFR letter, relates only to the principle of the work. The complete consultation response comments in a negative manner on several issues of detail. The conclusion being that without alterations the proposal would not be subservient and subordinate to the main building. The consultation response is included in full with the Panel Papers. Having considered this response, it was the conclusion of the Department that, as presented, the proposal adversely affects the character and setting of the Registered Building and the proposal is therefore contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. On the issue of the designation of Rocque Berg as a Registered Building, our records show a sequence of correspondence to and from the current applicant and the Department over the period March to October 2000. These related specifically to Rocque Berg as a Building of Local Interest. This correspondence clearly shows that the applicant was aware of the registration and indeed appealed against the registration, with the appeal being unsuccessful. The applicant is therefore quite incorrect in claiming that since 1978 he had never had any communication from the Department on this matter. The applicant was advised in the 2000 exchange of correspondence that he was quite entitled to submit an appeal against the registration. This is a quite separate process to the determination of a planning application, and was again relayed to the applicant’s current agent in pre-application correspondence. On this final issue, it is worthwhile noting that the proposal was subject to earlier pre-application advice (PA/2007/0311, albeit for a slightly different scheme) and the relevant issues of Shoreline Zone policy, extension onto agricultural land and impact on the Registered Building, were all highlighted at that time.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As previously

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Original Department delegated report Applicants letter of 21st October 2010, with enclosures (including the LC&ADS and HET consultation responses) Correspondence between applicant and Department from March to October 2000. Department pre-application advice letter of 16 March 2000 from PA/2007/0311

Endorsed by		Date	7 January 2010