Field 446 & adjacent outbuildings, La Rue de Pont, St. Mary

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (03/07/2007) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Field 446 & adjacent outbuildings, La Rue de Pont, St. Mary.

Subject:	Field 446 & Adjacent Outbuildings La Rue du Pont St. Mary Change use of agricultural building to dry store. Request for reconsideration of the refusal to allow the store for the storage of scaffolding equipment.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0142	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2002/3059
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Maintain decision
Reason(s) for decision: Because of the very rural nature of the area, the proximity to residential properties and the potential for noise nuisance to those properties, the storage of scaffolding equipment was considered to be an inappropriate use in these circumstances.
Action required: Letter to applicant
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 3 July 2007

Field 446 & adjacent outbuildings, La Rue de Pont, St. Mary - maintain refusal

Officer Report to the Minister

Application Number

P/2002/3059

Site Address	Field 446 & Adjacent Outbuildings, La Rue du Pont, St. Mary.

Applicant	A C Cadoret Buildings Ltd

Description	Change use of agricultural building to dry store.

Type	Planning

	20/12/2002

Zones	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C5 – Green Zone

Reason for Referral	This is a request to use the site for the storage of scaffolding. Although the use for dry storage was agreed by the Sub-Committee in May 2003, it was a condition that all users must be agreed with the Panel in order to safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring residential occupiers and the surrounding area in general. The Department has advised that the storage of scaffolding would not be a suitable use on this site which is in a very rural location and to the rear of a number of residential dwellings. It is considered that the combination of the use of forklift trucks and steel pallets is likely to lead to unacceptable levels of noise nuisance in what is a very quiet location. There would be approximately 4 visits per day commencing at 8am and the latest visit would be at 5pm. In support of this request the applicant’s Advocate advised that it was known that another site within a residential area was currently being used for the storage of scaffolding in the countryside but the Case Officer advised him that she knew that Jubilee Scaffolding had moved out of Heatherbrae Farm, St John and the other site was at St Mary but in both cases the site owners lived on site and therefore could control the situation. The owner does not live on this site. In determining the original application for a change of use of what were fairly insubstantial buildings, the Sub-Committee had visited the site and noted that the applicant required more space to store building materials (he was at the time developing the complex for residential purposes). The Committee considered that the building was entirely suitable for the purposes and accordingly granted consent. The applicant’s Advocate has stated that had the Sub-Committee not intended for the shed to be repaired/replaced, then why it not put a condition on the permit to that effect. In reply to a request that the shed be demolished and rebuilt, the applicant’s Advocate was advised that the policies relating to the Green Zone do not support the redevelopment of buildings for commercial use. The applicant’s Advocate has argued that in granting consent the Committee, bearing, in mind that shed’s condition, must have acceded to its inevitable replacement/repair to make the shed fit for the use for which the Committee had given consent. It is considered that there may well be a suitable use that would not involve noise so therefore the Committee was entitled to approve the storage use, but have control over future users. The applicant’s Advocate has written on a number of occasions since last November and now wants the Minister to review the matter as his client feels that what is being given on one hand is being taken away with the other by not allowing the redevelopment of the shed or the scaffolding storage. Depending on the outcome a Review Board Request will be considered by the applicant.

Summary/

Conclusion

The storage of scaffolding is an inappropriate use because of the potential nose nuisance this could create in a very quiet, rural location.

Officer

Recommendation

Refuse the storage of scaffolding.

7 September 2006

Letters from Advocate Harben

Letters from Case Officer.