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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 18 May 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0052			Application Number: P/2010/1673
Decision Summary Title :	East Cheam, Broadway, La Petit Route des Mielles, St. Brelade, JE3 8FD		Date of Decision Summary:		18/5/11
Decision Summary Author:	Planner- C Green		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 :	Request for Reconsideration Report		Date of Written Report:		11/3/11
Written Report Author:	Planner- C Green		Written Report : Public or Exempt?		Public
Subject: East Cheam, Broadway, La Petit Route des Mielles, St. Brelade, JE3 8FD Construct porch, utility room and sunroom. Construct dormer on the South elevation. Refurbish existing dormer on North elevation. Block up existing windows on East & West elevations. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): Allow the Request for Reconsideration, approving application P/2010/1673 contrary to the Departments recommendation. The application was considered by Planning Application Panel on 24 March 2011 as a Request For Reconsideration. The Panel maintained refusal, as per the officer recommendation. However, the Panel was not properly constituted at that meeting. The application was subsequently considered by the Assistant Minister for Planning at a Ministerial Hearing held on13 May 2011 and the application was approved.
Reason(s) for Decision: The proposed development is considered to be acceptable by the Assistant Minister having considered all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against policy G2 of the 2002 Island Plan, in which development must not have an unreasonable impact upon neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations. In this case, the proposed extension is regarded as acceptable because neighbouring property to the rear, 1 South Close, already suffers from overlooking from an adjoining property and this proposal would not materially worsen the situation.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and Objector.
Signature: Deputy C Egré		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Assistant Minister (Planning)
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

East Cheam, Broadway, La Petit Route des Mielles, St. Brelade - Approval of Application at Ministerial Hearing

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2010/1673

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	East Cheam, Broadway, La Petit Route des Mielles, St. Brelade, JE3 8FD.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. DLe Breton	Agent	Barnes & Collie Architects

Description	Construct porch, utility room and sunroom. Construct dormer on the South elevation. Refurbish existing dormer on North elevation. Block up existing windows on East & West elevations. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed rear/southern dormer windows will result in unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring property to the south, 1 South Close, which currently enjoys a high level of privacy. As such, the proposed development is considered to be contrary to Policy G2 of the Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	15/02/2011

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2, General Development Considerations G3, Quality of Design H8 Housing Development within the Built up Area

Recommendation

Maintain Reasons for Refusal

Comments on Case	The basis for the request for reconsideration made by the applicant is that decision to refuse the application was unreasonable. The applicant believes that the proposed development would not have an unreasonable impact upon the neighbouring property, 1 South Close, by means of visual intrusion, as the property already experiences overlooking from an adjacent property. In addition the applicant has expressed disappointed that at the pre-application advice stage, the potential impact of overlooking was not stated. One letter of representation has been received from the owners of 1 South Close, concerned that the development would lead to unacceptable overlooking of their property. East Cheam is a one and a half storey, two bedroom cottage, located off La Petit Route des Mielles and is surrounded by neighbouring residential development. The site is located within the Les Quennevais/Red Houses Built up Area, and as such there is no presumption against the proposed development, provided that it is able to satisfy the criteria as set out by Policy G2, G3 and H8 of the Island Plan, 2002. Policies G2 and H8 of the Island Plan, 2002 state that development proposals must not have an unreasonable impact upon on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations. Policy G3 seeks a high standard of design in all developments and that when considering applications matters of scale, form, massing orientation, siting, density, inward and outward views together with the relationship of existing buildings will be taken into account. The purpose of the proposed development is to provide an additional bedroom and further living space. Various alterations are proposed which include modifying the existing dormer of the front (northern) elevation and the addition of a new large ‘boxed’ dormer spanning the length of the roof in the south elevation. Two new first floor windows will be added to this rear, elevation, of which the bedroom window is considered to be excessively large with a glazed area measuring 2100mm by 900mm. These two proposed first floor windows will face directly towards and overlook the neighbouring property to the rear, 1 South Close. Although surrounded on all sides by development, by virtue of the fact that this property is a bungalow, and because only one existing first floor window of the surrounding properties looks towards the property, 1 South Close currently enjoys a relatively high level of privacy given its location. Given the close proximity of the proposed development, which is located 9.5m away from 1 South Close, together with the size, and its siting, the proposed development would have an unreasonable impact upon the neighbouring property by means of visual intrusion which is contrary to Policy G2 of the Island Plan, 2002. In addition, it should be noted that whilst it is recognised that there are other boxed dormer first floor extensions in the surrounding area, given the design quality of the proposed development; it would not have been unreasonable to have added an additional reason for refusal based on the design criteria set out by Policy G3 of the Island Plan.

Recommendation	Maintain Reasons for Refusal

Reasons	As given above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Request For Reconsideration from the applicant, Barnes & Collie and associated correspondence. Letters of representation received. Officier Assessment Sheet for General Development

Endorsed by		Date