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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (23.08.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for the vacant site at Les Grandes Vagues, Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement.

Subject:	Vacant Site At, Les Grandes Vagues, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement. Demolish existing 2 bedroom annexe building & construct 3 bedroom 1 1/2 storey house with parking & garden. REVISED PLANS: New dormer to west.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0138	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:		RP/2006/0759
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Maintain refusal
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: 23.08.06

Les Grandes Vagues, St Clement, vacant site - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: RP/2006/0759

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Vacant Site At, Les Grandes Vagues, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement.

Requested by	Ms. K White	Agent	ARKITECTURE LIMITED

Description	Demolish existing 2 bedroom annexe building & construct 3 bedroom 1 1/2 storey house with parking & garden. REVISED PLANS: New dormer to west. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Revised Plans

Original Decision	Refused

Reasons	1. The proposed dormer by virtue of its design, size and position is harmful to the appearance of the dwelling and fails to contribute to the appearance of the area contrary to Policy G3 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed windows in the dormer are likely to result in an unreasonable degree of potential overlooking to the neighbouring property, contrary to Policy G2 (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	08/06/2006

Zones	Built Up Area

Policies	Policy G2 (ii) “Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations”. Policy G3 items (ii) and (iii) 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; (iii) the degree to which design details, colours, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings;

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Design & Use of Materials The overall design and size of the building has not changed from that approved by the Planning Sub-Committee in 2004. The proposed dormer was considered by the Planning Application Panel as a poor addition to the approved dwelling by virtue of its size and disruption of the roofline. Therefore, the dormer is considered contrary to Policy G3 (i) and (iii) that seek to ensure that the scale, form and detailing of the development are appropriate to the existing building and the local context. The agent has put forward a number of examples of dormer windows. On the basis of the information submitted it is not possible to state that these were approved under the current Island Plan (specifically with reference to Policy G3). The proposed dormer is proportionally larger than then the others put forward and would result in an unbalanced design when viewed from the public realm. Furthermore, it would also create a cramped relationship with neighbouring properties. Impact on Neighbours The agent is correct to state that the immediate neighbour does not object to the proposed dormer and the additional windows. However, future occupants may consider the dormer to be intrusive given its close proximity. The approved dwelling included two rooflights (to a stairwell and bedroom) facing westward. The proposed dormer includes 3 windows (one to each bathroom and one to a bedroom). The dormer was to be approved on the condition that the windows being obscurely glazed and non-opening to prevent overlooking. However, this could not be accommodated by the Building Bye-Laws. The Building Bye-Law requirements aside, a conditional approval may have allowed an increased area of living accommodation without harming the amenity of the neighbouring property. However, the Planning Application Panel decided that such a condition would not be enforceable given that the obscure glazing could easily be removed by a future owner without agreement and the windows may be changed to an openable style. This is a reasonable conclusion to reach and therefore it is not possible to approve the dormer with the additional windows, only 4.5m from the boundary, and meet the requirements of Policy G2 (ii).

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 17th July 2006. Letter from occupant of neighbouring dwelling.

Endorsed by		Date