Kwetu, La Vallee de St. Pierre, St Lawrence

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (18.05.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Kwetu, La Vallee de St. Pierre, St. Lawrence.

Subject:	Kwetu, La Vallee de St Pierre, St. Lawrence, JE3 1EZ Demolish existing dwelling. Construct 4 No. 3 bed dwellings. Alter vehicle access. REVISED PLANS: Minor amendments to layout & fenestration. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: RETROSPECTIVE: Additional rock face removed to make safe.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0175	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/2006/1670
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s To uphold the refusal of the planning application
Reason(s) for decision: (Reason 1 of decision RP/2006/1670 only).The development has harmed the appearance of the area contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify agent / applicant / representatives
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 18.05.07

Kwetu, La Vallee de St. Pierre, St Lawrence - maintain refusal

Application Number: RP/2006/1670

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Kwetu, La Vallee de St Pierre, St. Lawrence, JE3 1EZ.

Requested by	Mr. L F Morgan	Agent	ARKITECTURE LIMITED

Description	Demolish existing dwelling. Construct 4 No. 3 bed dwellings. Alter vehicle access. REVISED PLANS: Minor amendments to layout & fenestration. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: RETROSPECTIVE: Additional rock face removed to make safe. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Revised Plans

Original Decision	REFUSED


Reasons	1. The development by virtue of the excavation and associated loss of vegetation results in unreasonable harm to the appearance of the area, contrary to Policy G2 (i), (ii) and (iv); and Policy H8 (ii) and (iii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The development by virtue of the waste material generated in excess of that detailed under planning application reference P/2005/0492 is contrary to Policy WM2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Sub Committee Approval

Date	19/01/2007

Zones	Built Up Area Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations H8 – Housing Development within the Built-Up Area WM2 - Construction and Demolition Wastes Plan

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal (Reason 1 only)

Comments on Case	Principle of Development The case officer’s letter dated 27th April 2005 clearly states that accurate drawings were required to assess the application. The drawing 3043-10B (latterly approved) was the agent’s response to that request. The approved drawings clearly state “Rock promontory to be cut back and made safe where shown hatched”. No drawings or any other information submitted during the application states that outside the hatched area the rock face will be tapered in the manner that Advocate Roscouet suggests. The extent of the excavation is clearly in excess of that approved. This is reflected by the fact that the retrospective application was submitted and the works detailed on drawing 3043-22. That drawing is annotated “Additional area of rock face cut back to make safe” and this clarifies that further excavation had, and was intended to, take place in excess of that approved. The Department did recommend approval however the Panel “considered that the extent of the excavation undertaken had seriously scarred the backdrop (at the top of the cliff face) to the Kwetu site and decided that it was not prepared to grant retrospective approval or to allow any further excavation to be carried out”. Whilst the works cannot be reversed, it is reasonable to refuse the application given that the development has harmed the appearance of the area and will take an indeterminate time to regain vegetation cover. Waste Management Policy WM2 requires that “Any development proposals involving the demolition of major structures or removal of significant quantities of waste material during construction shall identify the means by which the waste material shall be re-used, recycled or disposed of either within or off the site”. As stated in the previous Departmental Report, the waste management measures were satisfactory given that 90% of the material was to be re-used/re-cycled in accordance with Policy WM2. The Panel were concerned that the waste should be minimised regardless of the measures to re-cycle waste. However given that the Environment Department has not raised any objection it is reasonable to suggest that the additional waste generated is acceptable within the criteria of Policy WM2. With the exception of item ii (visual impact), the application is also iIn conclusion it is not reasonable to maintain reason 2 of the refusal notice however the visual impact is such that it harms the appearance of the area and therefore reason 1 of the refusal notice is recommended to be maintained.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal (Reason 1 only)

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letters from agent dated 15/03/07 & 19/04/07 Letters of representation Planning Application Panel minute. P&E Dept. Report dated 21/12/06 inclusive of all background papers.

Endorsed by		Date