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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (16.02.07) to maintain Condition 1 of planning permission for Flat 2, 8 Vauxhall Street, St. Helier.

Subject:	Flat 2, 8 Vauxhall Street, St. Helier, Jersey Replacement windows.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0126	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:		RW/2006/2118
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of condition number 1 (to exclude the two front elevation windows from this application).	Written report – Author:		Tim Furmidge
Decision Maintain condition No. 1
Reason(s) for decision: In considering all matters the Minister’s decision was that the original decision, to approve replacement of the two windows to the rear and to condition the permit so that it does not relate to the two windows on the front of the terrace, facing Vauxhall Street, should be maintained. The Minister was aware that other properties in the vicinity do have upvc window frames, but that the whole of the terrace of which your flat is a part has timber window frames and that being a historic building he was adamant that any replacement windows to the front should be timber framed 2 pane vertical sliding sash windows to comply with his Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Action required: Inform Applicant/Architect
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 16.02.07

Flat 2, 8 Vauxhall Street, St. Helier - maintenance of Condition 1

Application Number: RW/2006/2118

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Flat 2, 8, Vauxhall Street, St. Helier, JE2 4TJ.

Requested by	Mr. James Fairley	Agent

Description	Replacement windows. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of condition number 1 (to exclude the two front elevation windows from this application).

Type	Replacement Windows

Original Decision	APPROVED

Conditions	1. The two front elevation windows shown on the submitted plans, are to be excluded from this application and therefore does not have planning permission.
Reasons	1. For the avoidance of doubt.

Determined by	Delegated Approved

Date	24/11/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area Town Map Area Action Area 4

Policies	G2 General Development Considerations, H8 Development in Built Up Area, HWD5 Windows in Buildings Over 80 Years Old.

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	With reference to the appellant’s letter dated 10th January 2007, Mr Fairley stated the reasons for replacing the two front sash windows with white uPVC frames, instead of using timber is:- a) That other properties within this street have already changed timber windows for uPVC (see submitted photographs); b) These windows would be maintenance free; c) The cost for four uPVC windows would be approximately £2500, as opposed to approximately £4000 for two timber windows. This application was a split decision, the replacement white uPVC windows on the rear elevation were given approval due to the secluded rear courtyard location and the existing windows were a mix of styles and in poor condition. The two front windows, at ground floor level were refused, due to the fact that the existing front windows on the whole of the front elevation (the terrace house has been split in flats), 9 windows in total, are all constructed of timber and are of a 2 pane sash window design. To introduce two white uPVC windows, which would not match the existing design of the windows, would look out of keeping with the period façade/other windows and would have had a detrimental effect on the character of the building and the adjacent/attached neighbouring properties, which also have similar timber sash window frames. Although plastic windows are relatively maintenance free for a period of timber, however after 15 plus years the have a tendency to start breaking down and leaking, these windows can not be repaired, unlike traditional timber windows which can repaired in the same style. Cost is not a material consideration.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	Same as above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan, Letter and photographs from applicant dated 11th January 2007.

Endorsed by		Date