Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, St. Ouen: Determination of Planning Application P/2010/1064

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 4 November 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0102			Application Number: P/2010/1064 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen, , JE3 2FR		Date of Decision Summary:		4 November 2011
Decision Summary Author:	Andy Townsend		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		N/A
Written Report Title :	Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen,		Date of Written Report:		9 August 2011
Written Report Author:	Andy Townsend		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Le Vouest, Les Hativieaux, , St. Ouen, , JE3 2FR Demolish existing garage. Remove main house roof and replace with green roof and terrace. Construct extension to North-East elevation to provide new garage, storage and bedrooms. Various external alterations. AMENDED PLANS: Additional information submitted.
Decision(s): This application was considered and approved by the Planning Applications Panel on 11 November 2010 after a Site Visit and receiving representations in writing and at the meeting. Permission was granted under the (former) 2002 Island Plan. Following the issue of the permission, a Third Party Appeal was received. However, before the case went to Court it came to light that the Panel was not properly constituted when it had determined the application at its Hearing in November 2010. The application was therefore brought back to the (properly constituted) Panel in May 2011. At this meeting the application was deferred after it was contested that one of the drawings included in the PowerPoint slides submitted by the applicant’s architect had not been advertised. The amended drawings were then advertised. The applicant also submitted a plan to show the proposed location of the tight tank. This too was advertised. The Minister heard the application at a meeting on 12 September 2011 and deferred a decision for a Site Visit. The Minister visited the application site, the adjacent property to the north and also viewed the site and the scaffold poles erected, from a variety of points in the bay. The Minister considered that the scheme was acceptable provided that the angled first floor window was redesigned so that it looked only west down the side of the proposed extension and not at an angle across the property. The Minister also felt that the opportunity should be taken to improve existing levels of privacy between the application site and the house to the north by adding a privacy screen at the north end of the existing balcony. In addition The Minister considered that whilst the proposed drainage system satisfied Planning and Building Bye Laws requirements, the opportunity should be taken to move the tight tank further from the northern neighbours’ borehole and towards the house Le Vouest. A new position has therefore been submitted which shows the Tight Tank closer to the house Le Vouest and further from the neighbours’ borehole. A small alteration has also been made to the access to allow a tanker to park without obstructing other vehicles. On this basis the Minister approved the application subject to these points and the conditions below.
Reason(s) for Decision: 1. Before development commences, a plan must be submitted to the Minister, and agreed, to confirm the extent of the authorised curtilage. It is expected that this would project no further east than the rear elevation of the proposed rear wing of the extension hereby permitted. 2. All materials including details of all jointing and fixings must be agreed with the Department Architect. Details of any solar or photovoltaic panels or heat pump(s) which do not qualify as Permitted Development under the Planning and Building (General Development)(Jersey) Order 2011, must be agreed with the Minister. 3. The property must be connected to a tight tank prior to the occupation of any of the additional accommodation hereby approved in accordance with the details submitted. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2011,or any amendment to or replacement of that order, no works involving the erection of a building, extension, structure, gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure, tank, or the introduction of any hardstanding to any ground surface, other than those shown on the drawings approved with this permission or referred to in Conditions 2 and 6, is permitted without the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. 5. The species to be used on the sedum roof must be agreed with the Minister prior to its construction. 6. Prior to the commencement of development a Site Plan including existing and proposed levels and 2 perpendicular cross scetions shall be submitted to, and agreed by the Minister, to show the extent and contours of the raising of the front garden levels, and the materials to be used. 7. The first floor north facing corridor windows in the extension hereby approved shall at all times be glazed in obscure glass. Reasons 1. As part of the development The Minister wishes to ensure that this area does not become domesticated and wishes to agree a limited curtilage which will give greater control over any future development on the land to the east of the dwelling. 2. To ensure a satisfactory quality of construction. 3. To reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. 4. This is a sensitive site and the Minister wishes to retain control over future development on the site. 5. To ensure the species are appropriate to the area. 6. The area concerned and the increase in level is modest but the Minister wishes to agree specific details in the interests of the appearance of the site. 7. To avoid any unacceptable overlooking of the adjoining property. Proposed Reason For Approval in the event that the application is approved: Planning Permission has been granted subject to Conditions following careful consideration of the relevant Planning Policies and all consultations and representations recieved, the information submitted, the merits of the scheme, and having visited the site and viewed it from the adjacent property to the north and other viewpoints. It is recognised that the site lay within the Green Zone in the 2002 Island Plan, wherein Policy C5 set a general presumption against development. The site also lay within the area covered by the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework which, inter alia, sought to control development in the interests of maintaining the special character of the area. Policy C5 (Green Zone) of the Island Plan and Policies SO10 and SO15 of the St. Ouens Bay Planning Framework did not however prohibit extensions to dwellings, and such proposals may be permitted where the proposal would not detract from or unreasonably harm the sensitive character and scenic quality of this area and provided the impact upon neighbouring properties is not unacceptable, and that no highways problem or separate unit is created. Many extensions to houses have been approved in this area where it has been considered that these criteria have been met, and this application has been assessed in the same manner. The requirements of Policies G2 (General Development Considerations) G3 (Quality of Design) and NR2 (Foul Sewerage Facilities) have also been considered in particular in respect of the impact of the development on adjoining properties, the area and foul drainage. The 2011 Island Plan has subsequently been adopted and the site now lies within the Coastal National Park. In this area there is the strongest presumption against development, (Policy NE6). It is acknowledged however that there are existing buildings and uses in the Park. House Extensions are specifically noted as a type of development which may be acceptable as an excepetion to the general presumption against development provided they do not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area and where their design is appropriate relative to existing buildings and their context. It is considered that the extension of the dwelling as proposed will not have any detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the immediate area or the Coastal National Park as a whole taking into account its particular site context and setting against the hillside, the setback and the modest increase in height above the existing ridge. The use of materials proposed for the extension and for the remodelling of the front part of the house are considered to improve the appearance of the existing building, helping it to blend into its setting, and the scheme is supported by the Department Architect. The scale of the rear wing of the previous refused scheme has been significantly and satisfactorily reduced. A privacy screen has been included to the top floor balcony and the existing balcony, the window of the rear bedroom has been angled to avoid overlooking, and a Condition is imposed requiring the first floor north facing windows in the extension to be obscurely glazed. It is not considered that the scheme will result in harm to the adjacent properties. The small incursion into the slope at the rear of the property is not considered detrimental to the character of the area, and with the applicant's agreement a Condition is imposed to agree the extent of the residential curtilage which the Minister expects will not extend further east than that of the adjoining properties. This will reduce the size of the approved residential curtilage and prevent future domestication of this area. Notwithstanding the objections raised, the application is not for the creation of a separate unit or an annexe. As the application is otherwise considered acceptable, but will increase the number of bedrooms and hence the potential occupancy of the building, a tight tank is proposed in the absence of mains drains. This has been re-positioned away from neighbours’ boreholes and is considered a reasonable and realistic solution, which meets the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. It is therefore considered that the development satisfies the requirements of Island Plan 2011 policies GD1, GD7, NE6 and LWM2.
Resource Implications: The decision may be challenged by a third party. However, if refused the applicant is likely to make a first party appeal. The resource implications are the same in either event.
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):