Longridge, Rue de la Valle, Trinity

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 Longridge, Rue de la Vallee, Trinity.

Subject:	Longridge, La Rue de la Vallee, Trinity Construct first floor extension above garage to form new unit of accommodation.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0138	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/2006/2696
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Maintain refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The proposal is contrary to a number of Island Plan policies and there are no grounds for an exception to be made.
Action required: Letter to agent.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 18.05.07

Longridge, Rue de la Valle, Trinity - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/2696

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Longridge, La Rue de la Vallee, Trinity, JE3 5FA.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. Cowdery	Agent	REDDISH ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Description	Construct first floor extension above garage to form new unit of accommodation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed formation of a new unit of accommodation is contrary to Policy C5 of the Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed drainage to a septic tank and soakaway is contrary to Policy NR2 of the Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed design of the extension on two floors and the style and size of the dormers results in an incongruous appearance and fails to satisfy Policy G3 of the Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	15/01/2007

Zones	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C5 Green Zone G3 High Quality of Design NR2 Drainage

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The agent commences his request for reconsideration by stating that the decision was made in an unreasonable manner and without regard to established policies in use by the Department. In expressing this view he has demonstrated that it he is who has failed to have regard to the policies of the Island Plan. Firstly, the agent states that the application was for an extension to the house and not to create a unit of separate accommodation. However, the proposal is for a flat over the existing garage with an external staircase and there is no link whatsoever with the main house. The agent then refers to a property in St Saviour where a multi-generation home has been allowed with a condition that the new accommodation shall be occupied only as an integral part of the existing dwelling. The agents fails to state that the site lies in the Built-Up Area where there is no presumption against such accommodation. Secondly Policy NR2 clearly states that new development proposals that rely on septic tanks will not normally be permitted. The agents claims that a new bedroom would be permitted but fails to take account of the fact the new accommodation has its own kitchen and is an independant unit and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy NR2. At the time of the visit by Transport & Technical Services Drainage they were unable to obtain the size of the tank as it was very thick and had lots of sludge in the bottom. ‘It could do with servicing by our tankers’. A sewer connection is available at the end of the long drive to which the property could pump to. Finally the design of the extension is considered to be extremely poor and although it may be possible to create a 2nd floor here, it would have to be significantly improved before the Department could recommend support. The agent claims that the design reflects what has already been agreed on the neighbouring property and built. However there are no records of any applications on this property ‘The Fieldings’ under the Island Plan 2002, nor any on our computer records which commence about 20 years ago. The agent has clearly not taken account of the Island Plan Policies or the Ministers requirements on design.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As before.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date