Searchlight Bunker, Mont du Grouet, St. Brelade

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01.02.07) to refuse planning permission for the Searchlight Bunker, Mont du Grouet, St. Brelade.

Subject:	Searchlight Bunker, La Mont Du Grouet, St Brelade Change of use of bunker to cafe to include glass extension and internal alterations.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0081	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		PP/2006/1365
Written Report Title:	Consideration of Principal Planning Application	Written report – Author:		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Decision REFUSE
Reason(s) for decision: R: The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the natural quality of the Zone of Outstanding Character by virtue of intrusion on character and visual intrusion contrary to Policy C4 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. R: The proposal fails the satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii), iv), vi), vii), viii) and xvi) of Policy G2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii) and vi) of Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs ii), iii) and vi) of Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii), iii), iv), vi), vii) and ix) of Policy C12 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy G5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, by virtue of the fact that it failed to include an Environmental Impact Assessment.
Action required: Inform architect.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 1 February 2007

Searchlight Bunker, Mont du Grouet, St. Brelade - refusal

Application Number: P/2006/1667

Report to Minister

Application Number:

PP/2006/1365

Third Ref no:

Date Visited:

Various

Deadline date:

31/08/2006

Zones:

Designated Ecological SSI

Zone Of Outstanding Character

Building Of Local Interest

Relevant Policies:

Existing use of Land/Buildings:

Proposed use of Land/Buildings:

Material planning considerations

· Policy considerations

· Land use implications

· Size, scale & siting

(Impact upon neighbours)

· Design & use of materials

· Access, car parking and highway considerations

· Foul sewage disposal

· Landscaping

· Other material considerations

Whilst it is accepted that a café use could be installed in this building to make it viable it would most likely result in the loss of the almost intact interior. In addition the space available would not be sufficient to provide seating and ancillary space without an extension of the built form.

The agent was contacted in October 2006 requesting further detail to allow the Department to make a proper assessment of the impact that the use would have on this important structure. This information has failed to be provided. The agent has requested that the principle only of the use be considered and after much deliberation and consultation with Channel Island Occupation Society it has been concluded that it would not be feasible to allow an in principle change of use.

The reasons are as follows;

 The building would require internal alteration, that would destroy the remaining interior fittings and linings.

 The recommendations of Public Health would result in fittings and extraction that would cause permanent, irreversible damage to the fabric of the building.

 The alteration to facilitate a foul drainage connection would be too interventionist and there are no details included.

 The details of the proposed conservatory extension are considered inadequate.

 The proposed conservatory extension would have a detrimental effect not only on the character of this very specific built structure but would also have a detrimental effect upon the scenic quality of this area of the Zone of Outstanding Character.

 The CIOS intend to restore the building as it is a key building to the completion of the examples of the fortified headland of the area and the best preserved example of its type. Its loss would result in a significant gap in the history of the occupation buildings in the Channel Islands.

 Whilst highways do not support the proposal, the improvements they require if an approval was given would result in a change of the natural topography. This would unacceptably impact on the natural appearance of the area, contrary to policy C4.

Therefore the proposal is considered wholly inappropriate for the above reason and the is application cannot be approved.

Tourism-Support the application.

T&TS Drainage- There are no public sewers immediately available.

T&TS HIghways- Cannot support increased vehicular use of the area, as it would result in pedestrian risk. Visibility on exit would need to be improved

Environmental Services- The proposal is contrary to policies C4 and C12 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002

Public Health- recommendations for installation of services and food preparation facilities.

Summary of Representations:

There have been seven (7) representations received in respect of this application raising the following matters.

Unacceptable alteration to a registered structure (pSSI)

Unacceptable change to the character of the area

Noise and disturbance.

Traffic generation and road safety

Car parking.

Contrary to policy (C4,G3 and G13)

Number of habitable rooms:

Site area:

Density:

General Notes:

· Advice/Requests to Applicant/Agent

· Further consultations

· Etc

REFUSE

R: The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the natural quality of the Zone of Outstanding Character by virtue of intrusion on character and visual intrusion contrary to Policy C4 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

R: The proposal fails the satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii), iv), vi), vii), viii) and xvi) of Policy G2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii) and vi) of Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs ii), iii) and vi) of Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs i), ii), iii), iv), vi), vii) and ix) of Policy C12 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

R: The Proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy G5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, by virtue of the fact that it failed to include an Environmental Impact Assessment.