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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 19 October 2009 regarding: Cliff House, La Rue au Moestre, St. Brelade - Refusal of Planning Permission.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0170			Application Number: P/2006/1103
Decision Summary Title :	Cliff House, La Rue au Moestre, , St. Brelade, ,		Date of Decision Summary:		19 October 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Andy Townsend		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		P Thorne
Written Report Title :	Planning and Environment Department Report		Date of Written Report:		16 October 2009
Written Report Author:	Andy Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Cliff House, La Rue au Moestre, , St. Brelade, , Construct 2 bed dwelling and double garage within grounds. AMENDED PLANS: New house design including alterations to size and layout, additional bedroom and parking above garage. FURTHER AMENDED PLANS - Alterations to the proposed building and site plus the submission of additional information.
Decision(s): Refuse Permission. The Minister considered the amended scheme and additional information submitted, together with a full report from the Department and representations made, at a meeting in public on 16 September 2009, and deferred a decision. Having considered all of the relevant issues the Minister has concluded that the scheme could not be approved for the reason set out below.
Reason(s) for Decision: The proposed development occupies the majority of the site, with limited outdoor amenity space and landscaping, and due to its scale and site coverage, is likely to appear as a cramped development, overbearing upon and resulting in a loss of privacy, to houses in Quai Bisson. It is considered that the proposals would have a detrimental impact upon the character and amenity of the area which is designated as a Potential Conservation Area. The proposals therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2 (i, ii, iv, and vi,) (General Development Considerations), G3 (i, ii and iv) (Quality of Design), H8 (ii, iii, iv, vii, viii) (Housing Development Within the Built Up Area), and BE9 (Conservation Areas), of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. The site is narrow and steeply sloping, closely surrounded by other buildings and only accessible for construction and thereafter by a narrow lane with buildings close to its edge, many of them of considerable age. Due to the narrowness and steep gradient of the site, there is no space on site for the storage of materials and equipment during construction. The site is also within a Potential Conservation Area and a Tourist Destination Area, reflecting the area’s historic character and importance to the Island’s recreational and tourism facilities. It is considered that in these exceptional circumstances, due to the nature and position of the site, the scale of the building, the volume of material to be excavated and the lengthy and disruptive construction process, that the scheme is likely to have an unreasonably harmful impact upon the amenities of residents and the character of the area as a whole. It is therefore considered that the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2 (i, ii, vii, viii, x) (General Development Considerations), H8 (ii, iii, iv) (Housing Development Within the Built Up Area) and BE9 (Conservation Areas), of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Resource Implications: Potential first party appeal.
Action required: Issue formal refusal, 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):

Cliff House, La Rue au Moestre, St. Brelade - Refusal of Planning Permission

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

P/2006/1103

Site Address	Cliff House, La Rue au Moestre, St. Brelade.

Applicant	Mr N Guenier

Description	Construct 2 bed dwelling and double garage within grounds. AMENDED PLANS: New house design including alterations to size and layout, additional bedroom and parking above garage. FURTHER AMENDED PLANS - Alterations to the proposed building and site plus the submission of additional information.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	01/06/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area Potential Conservation Area Tourist Destination Area

Summary/

Conclusion

This application was deferred by the Minister at his meeting of 16 September.

In discussion since, the Minister has noted concerns and sought advice on whether he is committed to granting Permission.

The Department has reviewed previous minutes, meeting notes and letters, and whilst it may concluded that the Minister has given some support for the scheme, there have always been concerns to be addressed. This is amply illustrated by the Minister’s requirement for significant additional information. It is considered that it is within his gift to reach whatever decision he feels correct.

The key concerns are understood to be the impact of this building and the construction process, upon the character of the area, neighbouring buildings, and potentially the vitality of the area in the short term.

I have discussed the case with Appeals Officer Roy Webster. We are not aware of the Department having refused Planning Permission on the basis of potential disruption during construction, which is an issue that in recent years we have seen as marginal, and relied upon the Environmental Health Department to control. There is however evidence of case law in the U.K. relating to conditions relating to the construction process, which demonstrates that it can be a material consideration, even if it is a marginal one.

In most applications it is so marginal as to be immaterial. It would be completely unreasonable to refuse large developments simply on the basis that they will involve construction over a lengthy period of time. This would effectively stifle development altogether. However, the circumstances of this site are somewhat exceptional.

The site is very narrow and extremely steep. It can only be accessed from Market Hill, which is above the level of the site. Virtually the entire site will have to be dug out and re-supported. An enormous amount of excavation material will need to be removed, and this will require large vehicles travelling either the length of Market Hill in a forward gear, or as suggested in the application, reversing up from the bottom end. There is no area for storage, materials etc. The nature of the construction is such that there will be disruption on the road for a considerable period, and given the narrow nature of the road, the age of buildings and the proximity of many of them to the road, the potential for damage during vehicle movements, piling or the construction process. Given that the site has been highlighted as one of the Island’s few Tourist Destination Areas, and also one of its Potential Conservation Areas, it is appropriate that the impact on these designations is relevant.

It is not considered however that the development would impact so significantly on the vitality of St Aubin as a whole to justify refusal on that basis.

The Ministers’ Architect also expressed concerns with regard to the scale of the building in its particular context, and its design does give the opportunity for some level of overlooking to adjacent properties – a matter which the Minister said he would assess when he makes his final decision.

On the Department’s understanding of the Minister’s concerns, the following are considered reasonable reasons for refusal;

The proposed development occupies the majority of the site, with limited outdoor amenity space and landscaping, and due to its scale and site coverage, is likely to appear as a cramped development, overbearing upon and resulting in a loss of privacy, to houses in Quai Bisson. It is considered that the proposals would have a detrimental impact upon the character and amenity of the area which is designated as a Potential Conservation Area. The proposals therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2 (i, ii, iv, and vi,) (General Development Considerations), G3 (i, ii and iv) (Quality of Design), H8 (ii, iii, iv, vii, viii) (Housing Development Within the Built Up Area), and BE9 (Conservation Areas), of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

The site is narrow and steeply sloping, closely surrounded by other buildings and only accessible for construction and thereafter by a narrow lane with buildings close to its edge, many of them of considerable age. Due to the narrowness and steep gradient of the site, there is no space on site for the storage of materials and equipment during construction. The site is also within a Potential Conservation Area and a Tourist Destination Area, reflecting the area’s historic character and importance to the Island’s recreational and tourism facilities. It is considered that in these exceptional circumstances, due to the nature and position of the site, the scale of the building, the volume of material to be excavated and the lengthy and disruptive construction process, that the scheme is likely to have an unreasonably harmful impact upon the amenities of residents and the character of the area as a whole. It is therefore considered that the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2 (i, ii, vii, viii, x) (General Development Considerations), H8 (ii, iii, iv) (Housing Development Within the Built Up Area) and BE9 (Conservation Areas), of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Endorsed by: Date: 16 October 2009