Wyburn, 18 David Place, St. Helier

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (31.05.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Wyburn, 18 David Place, St. Helier.

Subject:	Wyburn, 18 David Place, St. Helier Demolish existing sub-standard units & construct 2 bedroom unit with parking at ground floor.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0134	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:		P/2005/1510
Written Report Title:	Request for reconsideration of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Uphold the refusal of the planning application
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify agent of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 31.05.06

Wyburn, 18 David Place, St. Helier - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2005/1510

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Wyburn, 18, David Place, St. Helier.

Requested by	Elmfield Ltd	Agent	J S Livingston Architectural Services Ltd

Description	Demolish existing sub-standard units & construct 2 bedroom unit with parking at ground floor. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building which is cramped, provides insufficient amenity space for potential occupiers, and is harmful to the occupiers of the existing adjacent residential units of accommodation contrary to Policy H8 (i) and (iii), and Policy G2 (ii) and (v).

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	19/01/2006

Zones	Building Of Local Interest Built Up Area Town Proposals Map Action Area 4 Island Rte Network: Secondary

Policies	Policy H8 – Housing Development within the Built-Up Area Proposals for new dwellings, extensions or alterations to existing dwellings or changes of use to residential, will normally be permitted within the boundary of the built-up area as defined on the Island Proposals Map, provided that the proposal: (i) is in accordance with the required standards for housing as set by the Planning and Environment Committee; (iii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of noise, visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; Policy G2 – General Development Considerations Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development: (ii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; (v) incorporates satisfactory provision of amenity and public open space where appropriate;

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The application relates to the demolition of an existing single-storey residential unit and an ancillary building and their replacement with a three-storey unit with parking. The principle of the development is acceptable and there are other similar developments in Winchester Street. The Application Sub-Committee, upon refusing 2 units, advised that one replacement unit may be acceptable and it was on this basis that the advice to submit an application was given. The current proposal was not refused on the basis of its design or impact on the appearance of the street as it is accepted that it could complete the street scene. The existing unit is sub-standard in terms of its amenity space provision and (likely) its internal space. Its replacement with a larger unit is welcomed by the Housing Department (see consultation response dated 25/10/05). However, the existing building is only single storey and as such does not impact on the amenity of the existing or neighbouring residential units. Overall, the development results in cramped relationships with existing properties and fails to provide sufficient amenity space. Amenity Space The proposed development provides 14.5m2 of amenity space which is only 50% of the minimum requirement for amenity provision for a two bedroom dwelling. Just as the existing yard has only limited value as amenity space, the ground floor area (approx. 30m2) has virtually no value as it would be in almost constant shadow and be adjacent to two parking spaces. It is true that other developments (in St. Helier) have only limited private amenity space but often this is complemented by communal space. The proposed unit is considered to be capable of family occupation given that it has two bedrooms, this is materially different to No. 16 David Place that has only one bedroom. No other specific “precedents” have been put forward by the agent as justification for the present application. It should also be noted that the adjacent development was approved under the previous Island Plan. The 2002 Island Plan, through policies H8 and G2, places a greater emphasis on providing adequate amenity space. Impact on neighbouring residential units The proposed three-storey development does follow the style and form of the adjacent development. However, it is considered that the development at the rear of 16 David Place has resulted in a harmful relationship with the main building and to repeat this relationship would result in a similar harmful relationship. However, it is likely that the proposed dwelling would create a greater impact on both 16 and 18 David Place by virtue of its enclosure of the majority of the open space between to properties. The close relationship of the balcony and the adjacent windows and the property to the south is also likely to result in an unreasonable degree of overlooking and lack of privacy for both the existing and proposed residential units. Additional Information The agent has submitted an amended scheme with an increased area of amenity space (30m2). Whilst this cannot be considered as part of the Request for Reconsideration it does not overcome the cramped relationship of a new three-storey building only 3.8m from the adjacent building.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 22/02/06 Consultation response dated 25/10/05 Consultation response dated 07/09/05 Letter of representation dated 17/09/05 Letter of representation dated 15/09/05

Endorsed by		Date