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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01/12/2008) regarding: Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence - Request for Re-Consideration.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008 - 0260			Application Number: P/2008/0538 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	, Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, , St. Lawrence, ,		Date of Decision Summary:
Decision Summary Author:	John Nicholson		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	P/2008/0538 Request for Reconsideration report		Date of Written Report:		5 November 2008
Written Report Author:	John Nicholson		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence. Construct shed to house agricultural machinery. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): The Minister referred to the Ministerial Meeting of 21st November 2008 when he had heard the Request for Reconsideration in public, and he had decided to refer the matter to the Assistant Minister for Planning and Environment for a decision, because he personally knew one of the objectors. However, the Assistant Minister had already considered the application, as Chairman of the Planning Panel, and the Minister therefore decided that it fell to him to determine the request for reconsideration. The Minister resolved the application should be refused permission for the reasons set out on the original Decision Notice.
Reason(s) for Decision: The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need for an agricultural storage shed cannot be met in existing buildings elsewhere, and as such the application fails to accord with Policy C16 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. The proposed agricultural shed is inappropriately sited, remote from the existing buildings, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the Countryside Zone, as the applicant has failed to provide a justification for the siting based on the needs of the holding, the application fails to accord with Policy C16 and Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence - Request for Re-Consideration.

Application Number: P/2008/0538

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Ville au Veslet Farm, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence.

Requested by	Mrs. S Le B. Amy	Agent	Bois Bois

Description	Construct shed to house agricultural machinery. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need for an agricultural storage shed cannot be met in existing buildings elsewhere, and as such the application fails to accord with Policy C16 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed agricultural shed is inappropriately sited, remote from the existing buildings, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the Countryside Zone, as the applicant has failed to provide a justification for the siting based on the needs of the holding, the application fails to accord with Policy C16 and Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	PAP

Date	11/08/2008

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area Proposed Site Of Special Int

Policies	C6 Countryside Zone

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The site is the south eastern part of Field 400A on the eastern boundary of the Ville Au Veslet Farm holding, off Le Mont Isaac, in St Lawrence. The application seeks permission for the erection of a shed to store agricultural machinery. It is proposed to be constructed in vertical timber panels, with sliding doors. The shed is would measure about 18.6m by 7m, and 3.5m in height (so having a floorspace of 130 sq m) The case for the Request for Reconsideration is enclosed in full in, being the undated letter from BoisBois lawyers, received in the Department on 24 September 2008. In relation to the first reasons for refusal, the RFR has failed to consider that there is already a shed on the site which is presently being used to house agricultural machinery. This is the “general purpose” shed where the present agricultural storage use is being pushed out by the expansion of the applicant’s son’s storage requirements as a general building contractor. The Department have no objection to the agricultural storage use continuing within the general purpose shed. It is clear the ownership of the general purpose shed is within the family and the issue of which specific member it belongs to has previously been irrelevant (as the shed has previously been used by both the farm and the building contractor) and so is not a material consideration for the purposes of considering this RFR. The interlinked family relationship is also evidenced by the position established in the RFR when the applicant explains that the (part unauthorised) items being stored on the farm in Field 440A (ie. in the ownership of Mrs Amy) include building materials being stored for the construction of the new house on the site of the Mont Isaac commercial shed (ie. in the ownership of Mr Amy). With reference to the points made within the RFR regarding the existing unused commercial shed to the west of the house, on one hand, the applicant appears to desire more storage space, yet on the other hand also wishes to develop a storage site for residential purposes. Both are authorised by the Planning Department - we cannot enforce the implementation of the residential permission and it is for the applicant to decide (based on their complete circumstances, which may include the overall need for storage on the farm) how they wish to balance this equation. It is therefore evident that the need can be met on site – as it already is. However, the applicant (and family) have chosen to use the general purpose shed for commercial building storage, and are seeking to redevelop an existing commercial shed for housing. With reference to the second reason for refusal, the RFR seeks to demonstrate that the proposed site is not remote (“30 seconds by tractor”) and is not detrimental to the character and appearance of the Countryside Zone (as it can’t be seen from the east). This case is brief in its consideration of the policy requirements as the tests relate to the proximity to the existing group of buildings – from which the site is remote. It is a matter of fact that its location is as far from the existing farm buildings as is possible, and still remain within the site. In relation to the condition of the proposed site, this has already been degraded by the (part unauthorised) storage of materials, and possible other unauthorised engineering works (remodelling embankments) and certainly should not form a baseline in an attempt to justify a new shed. In relation to the final numbered points made in the RFR letter,: 1. The LC&ADS consultation response actually confirms the agricultural need has arisen by the general purpose store being used by the builders business (ie. as set out above). 2. The Department make recommendations based on the content of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, taking into account all material considerations. Within this framework, the Department have explained how the needs of the farm can be met on site. 3. For the avoidance of doubt, we can confirm that no representation in support was received from the Parish. Furthermore, the representation from the National Trust explicitly OBJECTED to the proposal – identifying the same issues as were used in the second reason for refusal. 4. As considered above in relation to point 3, the National Trust wrote 2 letters of objection to the original application. An additional letter of representation has been received specifically in relation to this RFR which also focuses on (a) the number of existing sheds and (2) the inappropriate siting of the shed within the sensitive rural location. 5. The particular financial circumstances of the Amy family are not a material planning consideration.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal The policy requirements of the Jersey Island Plan are clear, requiring that proposals for a new shed within the Countryside Zone must be essential for agriculture, that the need cannot be met elsewhere and then that it must be appropriately sited. Therefore whist the need for the shed is accepted, it has not been established that the need cannot be met elsewhere. The proposal is for an agricultural shed of about 130 sq m, and there is already an unrestricted shed of about 170 sq m, and a further commercial shed of about 250 sq m available on the site which the applicant / applicant’s family, are choosing not to use for the stated agricultural need. In particular, it appears that a choice has been made on site that (1) the existing general purpose store will be used for the storage of commercial building materials, and (2) the existing commercial store will be redeveloped for a residential property. Either of these matters can be reconsidered to meet the agricultural need. The issues in relation to siting have not altered, it is also considered that the proposed siting of the shed is inappropriate, being remote from all other buildings and within the open countryside.

Reasons	As previously stated: 1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need for an agricultural storage shed cannot be met in existing buildings elsewhere, and as such the application fails to accord with Policy C16 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed agricultural shed is inappropriately sited, remote from the existing buildings, and detrimental to the character and appearance of the Countryside Zone, as the applicant has failed to provide a justification for the siting based on the needs of the holding, the application fails to accord with Policy C16 and Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Previous PAP report Letter of Objection Correspondence from Agent

Endorsed by		Date	5 November 2008