26 Raleigh Avenue, St. Helier

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (03.05.06) to grant planning permission for 26 Raleigh Avenue, St. Helier.

Subject:	26 Raleigh Avenue RETROSPECTIVE: Modify roof profile in between dormers on west elevation & amendments to fenestration.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0135	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Oral & Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Roy Webster
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/1383
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION against refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Richard Williamson
Decision(s The Minister decided to grant planning permission.
Reason(s) for decision: Given the context of the site, the limited visual impact of the change and overall improvements made to the building by the development, it was considered unreasonable to maintain refusal.
Action required: Inform applicant
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 03.05.06

26 Raleigh Avenue, St. Helier - grant permission

Application Number: P/2005/1383

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	26, Raleigh Avenue, St. Helier.

Requested by	Applicant: Raleigh Avenue Holdings Ltd	Godel Architects Agents Advocate

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Modify roof profile in between dormers on west elevation and amendments to fenestration. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION against refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed scheme represents an inappropriate design approach towards providing accommodation within the roof space and would materially detract from the character and appearance of this Building Of Local Interest.

Determined by	The Minister

Date	7 February 2006

Zones	Green Backdrop Zone, Built Up Area

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Comments on Case Summary	Background and Planning History 1978 – Consent granted for change of use from guest house to staff accommodation 2004 – Consent granted for alterations and extensions to form 7 No. flats 2005 – Retrospective consent refused for modification to roof profile between dormers 2006 – Request for Reconsideration in relation to the retrospective refusal turned down by the Minister Recent correspondence Three separate letters have been received in support of the applicant’s latest approach which is effectively a further appeal following his request for reconsideration. This was not supported by the Minister when he considered it in February 2006. They are: A letter from the applicant dated 24/03/2006 A letter from his architect dated 24/03/2006 A letter from his advocate dated 07/04/2006 Copies of all are enclosed. The letters make a significant number of points in support of the applicant’s arguments. They are; Appearance and impact · The design issue is subjective · The roof is hardly visible · The internal space will be greatly improved · There are similar dormers elsewhere · The quality of workmanship is high · The planning officer has adopted an unreasonable position, which is not shared by any other party. · This decision to resist the scheme is inconsistent with other designs which have been taken permitting changes and alterations to other buildings on the Register which have had a greater visual impact. Process · The property search prior to the applicant’s purchase of the building did not reveal it was on the Register. · He would not have purchased the property had he known it was on the Register. · There has been a significant delay in handling the application and subsequent appeals. · He intends to appeal to the Royal Court against the refusal of his scheme. · The Minister visited the site (February 2006) with the planning officer who had recommended refusal, which did not give the impression there had been a fair and unbiased assessment of his appeal. · He would be prepared to drop his claim for costs on the inaccurate information provided within the property search if the matter of the dormer window can be resolved in his favour. Very few of the points outlined above are entirely new. Most are issues, which have been raised with the pervious Committee and the Minister although they have been expanded on within the recent correspondence. At the heart of the issue lies the applicant’s claim that the original property search was inaccurate. It may well be that the applicant has a legitimate claim for damages but that must be regarded as an entirely separate issue from the physical alteration he has made to the building without consent. He may or may not decide to go ahead with the claim for costs, but a view needs to be taken upon the acceptability of the work he has carried out to the building as an entirely separate matter. Against the points made by the applicant, the following matters need to be taken into account, and have already been taken into account as part of his earlier request for reconsideration. They are: · The photographs of other dormer windows were considered as part of earlier decisions but the Committee and the Minister were not prepared to accept that they were comparable examples with the current scheme. In addition, they were also not prepared to accept that the existence of poorly designed windows elsewhere represented sufficient precedent to allow the current proposals. · The present scheme would not have been supported by the officers if the building had not been on the Register. · The current structure does improve head heights within the building but that is not the sole determining issue in relation to assessing appropriateness or compatibility in design terms. · The planning officer is not the sole party who, to date, has considered the scheme inappropriate. This position was supported by the previous Committee, the Minister and the Assistant Director (Development Control). · The delay in dealing with the applicants first request for reconsideration was in large part due to the changeover from Committee to Ministerial Government. · Letter of appeal received 06/10/2005 · Report completed 30/11/2005 · Minister visits site 07/02/2006 · Letter confirming rejection of request for reconsideration 10/03/2006 · Notwithstanding the claim by the applicant, this treatment of linking dormer windows is neither common or appropriate design practice. The bulk of the linking feature between the windows does materially detract from the character and appearance of the building and notwithstanding the photographs is not a typical or traditional design feature. There are a significant number of dormer extensions which have been built within the last 30 years which have damaged the appearance and character of the buildings on which they are set. It is the Minister’s intention to insist that where alterations within the roof are proposed, that they are carried out in such a fashion that their scale, appearance and design responds to the scale and character of the building in question. The scheme completed by the applicant is not deemed to satisfy this and is therefore contrary to Policy G13 (Building and Places of Architectural and Historical Interest).

Recommendation	Maintain refusal



Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from applicant 24/03/2006 Letter from architect 24/03/2006 Letter from advocate 07/04/2006 Letter to applicant from Planning officer 10/03/2006 NOTE The applicant has also inserted a further velux rooflight on the building without formal planning consent. Should the Minister not support this request for reconsideration it is recommended that enforcement action be taken to remove the dormer link and the unauthorised velux rooflight.

Endorsed by		Date	25 April 2006