Heathmount, Mont des Corvees, St Ouen,

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (19/01/2007) regarding: Heathmount, Mont des Corvees, St Ouen, Convert garage to dwelling.

Subject:	Heathmount, Mont des Corvees, St Ouen, Convert garage to dwelling
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0060	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Elizabeth J Ashworth
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/1667
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission.	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth J Ashworth
Decision Maintain refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The size, design and form of the dormers fail to satisfy the criteria of G3 which requires a high quality of design.
Action required: Inform architect.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 19 January 2007

Heathmount, Mont des Corvees, St Ouen, - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/1667

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Heath Mount, Le Mont des Corvees, St. Ouen.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. SMcGreevy	Agent	BDK ARCHITECTS

Description	Convert garage to dwelling. Alter dormers of main house to match that of conversion. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The dormers to both the new unit of accommodation and the existing house are of an inappropriate design and scale and therefore the proposals fail to satisfy the criteria Policy G3 and G13 of the Island Plan 2002. 2. Details of the required amenity space for the proposed unit of accommodation have not been satisfactorily demonstrated and therefore the proposal fails to satisfy the criteria of Policy G2 of the Island Plan 2002. 3. Details of satisfactory drainage have not been submitted and therefore the proposal fails to satisfactory Policy NR2 of the Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	17/10/2006

Zones	Green Zone Building Of Local Interest

Policies	G3, G13

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The architect was given pre-application advice that it may be acceptable to convert the garage to accommodation but “you would need to carefully design any dormers and indicate the amount of amenity space in your submission”. The application that was subsequently submitted showed very large dormers that were unacceptable. The application went before the Design Review Group who felt that scant regard had been made of the advice and the application was about to be refused. However contact was made by the architect and the Case Officer then advised him of the above. From the outset it is clear that the proposals have been designed from the inside out so to speak with more regard for the provision of ‘comfortable accommodation within the existing garage frame’, than any regard for the appearance of the dormers both on the garage and the main house, which is a Building of Local Interest. In the architects letter of request for reconsideration he make two interesting points: In his view the original garage ( approved later 1990s) must have originally designed and constructed with a conversion in mind as the current elevation includes a single door which has prompted his clients to make the application…….. the angles of the roof must have been an oversight by the original designer, in short why has the garage been previously approved with a separate door obviously for future accommodation use with a totally un-useable loft space to which the Department would respond, it was approved as a garage with an area for storage over. Secondly he states that there is no possible way can our client reduce the size of the dormers to the garage without making the 1st floor rooms practically uninhabitable to which the Department would respond, the 1st floor of the garage is therefore not capable of satisfactory conversion to habitable accommodation as the dormers are far too large and not in accordance with the Ministers of Planning stated requirements for good design in all development. The same applies to the proposals for the dormers to the main house. Regarding the issue of amenity space the architect has stated that it is not the intension for the owners to let the accommodation or sell it out of the extended family and that as the property is so extensive that to define an amenity space for a single-family use would simply be to extend to all the boundaries. However, it is still the normal requirement that some area be given over to provide an amenity area for new accommodation and there is no need to define it with any structures

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As before.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter and appendix from architect dated 12 December 2006.

Endorsed by		Date	9 January 2007