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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (13.03.06) to approve planning permission for Highview Cottage, Rue Militaire, St. John.

Subject:	Land to the west of Highview Cottage, La Rue Militaire, St John Retrospective Change of Use of field to domestic curtilage
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0159	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/1729
Written Report Title:	To consider approving a strip of land to west of Highview Cottage for use as domestic cartilage. 11.2m x 52m.	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Approved
Reason(s) for decision: Minister considered that permitting a reduced area of the land to be used to provide car parking, turning and a number of garden buildings, providing that a hedge was planted along the western boundary and that no play equipment was to be stationed on the remainder of the field at any time, was acceptable
Action required: To advise the applicant of the decision.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 13 March 2006

Highview Cottage, Rue Militaire, St. John - approval of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1729

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Land To The West Of, Highview Cottage, La Rue Militaire, St. John.

Requested by	Mrs. M Malzard	Agent

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Change of use of field to domestic curtilage. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The change of use of the field to part of the domestic curtilage is considered to be harmful to the visual appearance of the landscape and is therefore contrary to Policy C5 of the Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Sub Committee Refusal

Date	18/11/2005

Zones	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area Building Of Local Interest

Policies	G2 General Development Considerations which states that applicants will need to demonstrate that the proposed development will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area; will not have an unreasonable impact on the landscape and includes, where appropriate measures for the enhancement of the landscaping of the site. C5 Green Zone the areas designated as Green Zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. However, development 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 the area. In all cases, the appropriate tests as to whether a development will be permitted will be its impact on the visually sensitive character of this zone and whether it accords with the principle of sustainability which underwrite the plan.

Recommendation

That the area to the northeast corner of the site which is currently screened by a hedge and is used for car parking and the siting of a shed, is re-organised so that it can include some of the play equipment that is located around the field This could include the swings and slide equipment. The area upon which the swings are now sited should be returned to grass. The summerhouse should also be relocated to this area,

Comments on Case	The site is very visible from the road to the south, La rue Militaire, and whilst it is accepted that in certain areas , the provision of additional amenity space can be provided in the Green Zone without harming the character of that zone, the Committee in refusing to allow the retrospective application was firmly of the view that the areas that have been included into the domestic curtilage should be removed because of the detrimental visual impact the domestication of the area has on the countryside which is protected from development by Policies G2 and C5 of the Island Plan 2002. However the Case Officer and Enforcement Officer have visited the site and spoken with Mr & Mrs Malzard and following a discussion with the Assistant Director, who had previously had a general discussion meeting with Connetable Vibert and the Director of Planning, it is considered that a compromise can be reached. Mr Malzard is keen to keep the shed located in the area indicated on plan B as turning and secure parking away from road. It is recommended that this area be re-organised to include possibly the swings and slide equipment that are sited to the south and west of the hedging. The summerhouse should also be relocated into this area with a strip of hedging removed so that anyone using the summerhouse can overlook the field. The remainder of the area can be used as visitor and overflow parking, if necessary in tandem. Mrs Malzard has suggested that she plant more trees and this is to be encouraged as it would help to enhance and enforce the rural character of the area. Even if they are fruit trees, orchards were once common on the Island and therefore this would be entirely appropriate. Each of the properties that are the former barn are recorded as 2 bedroomed properties and thus require only 2 spaces each. Each of the gardens meets the minimum standards of amenity space as set out in the Panel’s requirements.
	The main house has its own parking to the south of the house but Mr and Mrs Malzard prefer to park on the area to the north east of the field subject of the request for reconsideration, for safety reasons. The main driveway is gated. It is recognised that some of the play equipment is large and cannot be accommodated on this area. The Case Officer assured Mrs Malzard that there was no problem with her grandchildren using the field as a play area, but the equipment could not remain as presently sited. The area to the west of the entrance with its post and rail fencing is agreed but the surfacing should remain as grass. There is no reason why the gardens of the houses should not contain some play equipment or the wooden benches and tables that are also sited in the field.
Recommendation	The play equipment and garden benches and tables shall all be removed from the field. The swings and slide equipment could be sited within the area described as turning and parking area along with the summerhouse. The shed can remain. The remainder of the field is cleared of any materials and equipment. For the avoidance of doubt see plan E which has been annotated as above and can become the approved site plan.

Reasons	In this way the applicants retain some of the additional domestic space but the visual intrusion is minimised and therefore the strict criteria of Policies G2 and C5 can be more easily met.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Report to Committee Letter to applicant from Case Officer Letters from applicants Letter from Deputy Lewis

Prepared by		Date

Endorsed by		Date