Soleil D'or, Rue de Jambart, St. Clement

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01.08.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Soleil D'Or, Rue de Jambart, St. Clement.

Subject:	Soleil D'or, La Rue de Jambart, St. Clement Demolish garage. Construct 4 bed dwelling. Alteration to vehicle access.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0181	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/2005/2209
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Uphold the refusal of the planning application
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify applicant of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 01.08.06

Soleil D'or, Rue de Jambart, St. Clement - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2005/2209

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Soleil D'Or, La Rue de Jambart, St. Clement.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. SCorcoran	Agent	Design Plus

Description	Demolish garage. Construct 4 bed dwelling. Alteration to vehicle access. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale and relationship with adjacent properties would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site resulting in harmful overbearing prejudice contrary to Policy H8 (iii) and Policy G2 (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its scale and design would be harmful to the character of the area contrary to Policy G3 (i), (ii) and (iii), and Policy H8 (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 3. The proposed development by virtue of the balcony and from the upper floor windows (west elevation) would result in an unreasonable degree of overlooking of the neighbouring properties, contrary to Policy H8 (iii) and Policy G2 (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Planning Application Panel.

Date	31/05/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development: (ii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; G3 – Quality Of Design A high standard of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and the built context will be sought in all developments. The Planning and Environment Committee will require the following matters to be taken into account as appropriate: (i) the scale, form, massing, orientation, siting and density of the development, and inward and outward views; (ii) the relationship to existing buildings, settlement form and character, topography, landscape features and the wider landscape setting; (iii) the degree to which design details, colours, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings; H8 - Housing Development within the Built-Up Area Proposals for new dwellings, extensions or alterations to existing dwellings or changes of use to residential, will normally be permitted within the boundary of the built-up area as defined on the Island Proposals Map, provided that the proposal: (iii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of noise, visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; (vii) is appropriate in scale, form, massing, density and design to the site and its context;

Recommendation

Maintain refusal.

Advise that a 1½ storey pitched roof dwelling would be acceptable designed so that there is no conflict between habitable rooms of surrounding properties.

Comments on Case	The recommendation was balanced and this is reflected in the fact that it was put before the Panel as a General Item and not a recommendation for approval or refusal. However, the balance of the recommendation was in favour of the majority of the scheme. Nevertheless, the applicant is correct in stating that the principle of a dwelling has always been accepted and that the Department negotiated with a view to overcoming the concerns regarding overlooking and the scale of the development. Scale of the Development The agent supplied information to the Panel demonstrated that the development was similar to many other dwellings in the area in terms its footprint and plot size. Therefore it could be argued that the scale of the scheme is acceptable. Having viewed the site, the Panel noted that this plot was surrounded by existing development (and approvals to the south) considered that a smaller dwelling was required in order to accord more closely with the scale and mass of Soleil D’Or and the dormer bungalows to the south. Potential Overlooking Two issue of overlooking exist.  Proposed Balcony. The Department does not agree with the applicant that the balcony is 12m from the property to the south. It is proposed to be 2m from the boundary and its garden area, and also faces the property (19m away) to the east. The Department maintains that the balcony should be removed from the scheme as the partially 1500mm high screen will not prevent direct overlooking. The proposed 1700mm screen would need to go all the way around the balcony to prevent overlooking; however, this is unlikely to acceptable to the applicant and would not produce a pleasing balcony area.  West Elevation Windows Whilst the balcony only marginally impacts on the property to the east, the west elevation windows, serving dining/living rooms were considered to unreasonably affect the amenity of the property to the west (approximately 15m from its first floor living room window). The scheme has been amended to reduce the potential overlooking and the primary window to the neighbouring property does face south (rather than towards the application site) however, the 15m relationship between the living rooms of both properties is considered to be unacceptable given that such a relationship does not exist at present. Proposed Design Whilst it is apparent that the proposed dwelling will only be partially visible from the public realm. It is considered that the fundamental problems of the development relate to its scale but the Planning Application Panel considered the design also to be inappropriate. The applicant maintains the opinion that the design is acceptable and has suggested no changes to the design. Equity of Representation The applicant claims that he was not afforded a fair representation due to the attendance of a political representative of the Parish acting on behalf of the concerned residents. The Department does not consider this to be a reasonable point of view given that the agent also attended the site visit to put the applicant’s case to the Panel.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal. Advise that a 1½ storey pitched roof dwelling would be acceptable designed so that there is no conflict between habitable rooms of surrounding properties.

Reasons	As previous.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from applicant dated 4th July 2006 2 letters of representation relating to the Request for Reconsideration. Officer Committee Report dated 10/05/06 Letter from agent dated 27/01/06 Letter from applicant dated 21/01/06 8 letters of representation relating to the application. Consultation response from T & TS (Highways) Letter from case officer dated 20/02/06

Endorsed by		Date