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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26.06.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Fairfield, Trinity.

Subject:	Fairfield, Trinity Conversion of existing barn into 4 residential units. Hard-standing & landscaping. REVISED PLANS: New openings to west elevation. Single storey extension to north east corner. Minor changes to layout. AMENDED PLANS: New vehicular access. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: Construct conservatory to east elevation of unit 1. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of conservatory.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0180	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2007/0208
Written Report Title:	Request For Reconsideration Report	Written report – Author:		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Decision: Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The refusal has been maintained for the reasons given in the original decision.
Action required: Decision maintained letter to be sent to agent.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 26th June 2007

Fairfield, Trinity - maintain refusal

Application Number: RP/2007/0208

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Fairfield, La Rue du Hurel, Trinity.

Requested by	Mr. P Cadoret	Agent	PAR Architectural Services Limited

Description	Conversion of existing barn into 4 residential units. Hardstanding & landscaping. REVISED PLANS: New openings to west elevation. Single storey extension to north east corner. Minor changes to layout. AMENDED PLANS: New vehicular access.FURTHER REVISED PLANS:Construct conservatory to east elevation of unit 1. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of conservatory.

Type	Revised Plans

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed works would harm the architectural character and integrity of this traditional agricultural building resulting in an unacceptable visual harm to the character of the countryside contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	18/04/2007

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	G2, G3, C6.

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The Department is in receipt of the letter dated 2nd May from Crill Canavan, the applicants lawyers. The letter concentrates on 4 points of contention and these are addressed as follows: That the refusal notices refers to further revised plans and that the applicant is now Mr. Cadoret himself and not his company RP Homes as previously. This point is irrelevant as the Planning Law and its constraints relate to the property and not the person. The application refers to Unit 1, Fairfield and the Department have registered the application as Revised Plans as the works are not complete. Therefore for the purposes of planning the unit is not yet independent from the conditions of the permit that allowed its conversion initially. That said all of the above would have had no bearing on the decision. It is correct that Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan allows for domestic extensions where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character or scenic quality of the countryside. The proposal does not in the opinion of the case officer accord with this policy. It is the visual harm to this group of agricultural buildings and the resultant harm to the charcter of the countryside that is the very reason for refusal. The addition of such domestic structures are wholly inappropriate on former agricultural buildings due to the change in the character of the building group that they bring about, leading to the incremental suburbanisation of the countryside. These new dwellings have only been allowed in the countryside by virtue that they could be converted from a redundant agricultural building. Conversion of these buildings is allowed to ensure that the built heritage of our Island is preserved and the special character of the Island retained. With that exception to policy comes various constraints; the prevention of over domestication of the character of such farm groups is just one. The precedent cited at La Croix Trinity is not relevant. Mr and Mrs Watkins inhabit the dower to the main house. It has always been a residential unit, not a converted agricultural building. Furthermore there is historic evidence of a vinery structure in the location of the recently approved conservatory. The lack of registration of the buildings at Fairfield is not material to the argument. The case officer did not visit the site and Mr Livingstone is correct that a Technician was asked to take the photographs. This is in light of the fact that the case officer had made several previous visits to the site and the extension against which the conservatory would have been built was to a design suggested to Mr Cadoret by the case officer. The case officer was fully aware of the progress on site and the impact that the proposal would have had.. Full and open minded consideration of the case was given by a case officer, a qualified Architect with specialist knowledge of historic building conservation and conversion.
Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	The proposed works would harm the architectural character and integrity of this traditional agricultural building resulting in an unacceptable visual harm to the character of the countryside contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter of representation on behalf of client from Crill Canavan dated 2nd May 2007.

Endorsed by		Date