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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (02.05.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Woodstock Lodge, Vallee des Vaux, St. Helier.

Subject:	Woodstock Lodge, La Vallee des Vaux, St Helier
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0190	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/2005/1602
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration Report	Written report – Author:		Kelly Johnson
Decision(s Maintain refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for decision: 1. The size, scale, siting and design of the proposed extension would result in a development which would be prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone, contrary to Policy C5 in the Island Plan 2002 which seeks to protect the character of the countryside.
Action required: Issue decision letter
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 03.05.06

Woodstock Lodge, Vallee des Vaux, St. Helier - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1602

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Woodstock Lodge, La Vallee des Vaux, St. Helier.

Requested by	Mr. Ogden	Agent	CRAWFORD ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN

Description	Construct extension to south elevation. AMENDED PLANS: Construct extension to south elevation. Change of use to home office. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The size, scale, siting and design of the proposed extension would result in a development which would be prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone, contrary to Policy C5 in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 which seeks to protect the character of the countryside.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	06/12/2005

Zones	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C5 – Green Zone

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The site is located within the Green Zone of the Island Plan 2002. Policy C5 – Green Zone states that areas within this zone ‘will be given a high level of protection’, however domestic extensions may be permitted ‘but only where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of this zone.’ The extension will double the size of the existing building. Extensions to buildings should be designed at an appropriate scale to the building it is extending. The extension is considered a substantial alteration to the building and could only be supported it was visually unobtrusive. However, the proposed extension is located on the most exposed side of the building and is highly visible as vehicles approach the entrance to the Valley (refer to photographs attached). The location of the extension will also require the landscaping on the south side to be removed, further exposing the extension to the pubic view. This prominent location means any alteration will be noticeable and thus requires careful consideration. The scale of the extension in this location is unacceptable and will be visually detrimental to scenic quality of the area. A successful extension is one that is not conspicuous or which improves the appearance of the existing building. The proposed extension is not in keeping with the existing house, and does not respond to the existing character and appearance of the existing house. It clearly displays a different design approach and one which does not assist in the integration of new and old. It is considered that the proposed extension is contrary to Policy C5 – Green Zone and is not supported.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	1. The size, scale, siting and design of the proposed extension would result in a development which would be prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone, contrary to Policy C5 in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 which seeks to protect the character of the countryside.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from Mr Ogden dated 2nd March 2006 Photographs of the approach to the valley

Endorsed by		Date