La Rosiere, Rue de Pontlietaut, 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (16.03.07) to uphold Condition 8 of planning permission for La Rosiere, Rue de la Pontlietaut, St. Clement.

Subject:	La Rosiere, Rue de la Pontlietaut, St Clement Request for Reconsideration of Condition 8 of Planning permit P/2006/1806 which excludes Unit 5 from the development
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0090	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Richard Glover
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/1806
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of Condition 8 of Planning permit P/2006/1806 which excludes Unit 5 from the development	Written report – Author:		Richard Glover
Decision Uphold Condition 8 and not allow Unit 5 of the development
Reason(s) for decision: The property is too strident for the part of the site on which it is located. In form the applicant that a less imposing (lower) dwelling with granite walling would probably be more appropriate on the site
Action required: Inform Agent
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 16 March 2007

La Rosiere, Rue de Pontlietaut, St. Clement - uphold Condition 8

Application Number: P/2006/1806

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	La Rosiere, Rue De Pontlietaut, St. Clement.

Requested by	. Brocken Holdings Ltd	Agent	GODEL ARCHITECTS

Description	Construct 4 No. 4 bed houses. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION. Delete condition no. 8 (which refused permission for the 5th dwelling).

Type	Planning

Original Decision	APPROVED

Conditions	This RfR relates to the inclusion of a condition on the approval that effectively deletes one of the units that was originally applied for from the permission. As such the relevant condition to which the RfR relates is; 8. Notwithstanding the approved plans this approval shall not relate to House 5. Reason House 5 would create an unduly prominent feature detrimental to the amenity of the area and contrary to Policy H8 and G2 of the Island Plan 2002

Determined by	Planning Panel on 11 January 2007

Date	17/01/2007

Zones	Built Up Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations H8 – Housing in the Built Up Area

Recommendation

To maintain the reason for refusal

Comments on Case	This Request for Reconsideration relates to an application that originally sought permission for 5 No. dwellings within the garden area of La Rosiere in St Clement. The application was considered by the Planning Applications Panel on 11 January 2007, following a site visit. The Panel felt that the development of unit 5 would be inappropriate given its size and that a single storey unit might be more acceptable. Further, the Panel felt that the site was narrow and would provide little amenity space and might well be better left as an open area. Consequently the Panel refused permission for the development of 5 houses but approved 4 dwellings with the site for unit 5 to remain as non-communal amenity space associated with the development. The Request for Reconsideration has been submitted on the basis that the applicant claims unit 5 as demonstrated in the application provides some 360sq.m of private amenity space. Whilst scaling the submitted plan provides a figure closer to 280sq.m. this figure is well in excess of the minimum of 50sq.m required by PPN6 and indeed reflects the scale of the dwelling which has 4+ bedrooms. Added to this clarification over the level of amenity space available to unit 5 the applicant has sought to address any concerns over potential impact on nearby property from the proposed dwelling. This is in the form of a letter from the occupants of the dwelling within whose former garden area the development is taking place. This letter states that those residents have no objection to the proposed fifth dwelling. Notwithstanding the comments from the applicant there is no fundamentally new information that was not previously available to the Planning Applications Panel. What is crucial to consider is not a simple arithmetic formula for assessing potential developments but studying the plans and relating them to the site. The area of the site that was to accommodate unit 5 is some 2m above the adjoining highway, Ponterson Lane and is the most prominent part of the site when viewed from the public realm. The unit as proposed is some 10m to the ridge in order to accommodate a full floor of rooms within the roofspace. This height added to the elevated position above the highway would inevitably create a strident feature in the vicinity. Indeed these concerns were obviously in the mind of Panel Members when they commented that a single storey property would probably be appropriate. The decision to exclude approval of Unit 5 from the scheme was taken following a site visit and in full knowledge of the plans as submitted. The information submitted to support the Request for Reconsideration does add some quantifiable figures to the proposal but does not address the scale of development which was evident when the decision was taken. In this context there are no substantial reasons to alter the previous decision.

Recommendation	Maintain the decision of the Planning Panel in relation to Condition 8 of the Permit.

Reasons	No information has been provided that addresses the concerns of the impact of the proposal on the character and amenity of the area.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date