Kereda, Rue du Poivre, St. John

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (23.08.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Kereda, Rue au Poivre, St. John.

Subject:	Kereda, La Rue du Poivre, St. John Extend ground and first floor to north of property.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0152	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/2006/0871
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: Design unacceptable – contrary to Policies C6 and G3
Action required: Advise architect of Minister’s decision by letter
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 23.08.06

Kereda, Rue du Poivre, St. John - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/0871

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Kereda, La Rue du Poivre, St. John.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. DLe Brocq	Agent	Quérée Architects

Description	Extend ground and first floor to north of property. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal, by virtue of its size and design, fails to satisfy the criteria of Island Plan Policies C6 and G3. Policy C6 seeks to protect the countryside from development that is visually harmful to the character of the area. G3 seeks a high quality of design.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	30/05/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C6 and G3 which seeks a high quality of design.

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Following the original refusal the Case Officer met with the architect and applicant and discussed some alternative sketches. These indicated an extension centralised in the rear elevation with a traditional roof pitch as opposed to a bulky flat-roofed 2 storey extension which was visually unacceptable. The principle of the extension was acceptable. It was agreed that this new approach was much better and the Case Officer gave her support. However, when the application was submitted it did not follow the scheme discussed but proposed an off-centre 2 storey extension which again was visually unacceptable and therefore the application was refused as it did not comply with Policy G3. No supporting case was put forward to the alternative approach but the in letter requesting reconsideration the architect refers to the fact that he has shown an asymmetric roof to avoid a bulk mass at first floor level. It is not considered that the there are sufficient grounds to allow the scheme as submitted.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	Scheme is visually unacceptable.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date	14 August 2006