Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

The Penthouse, Holmgate Court, Claremont Road, St. Helier: Planning Application (P/2016/0346): Appeal Decision

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 12 September 2016:

Decision Reference:    MD- PE- 2016 – 0119

Decision Summary Title:

Appeal Decision – The Penthouse, Holmgate Court, Claremont Road. St. Helier JE2 4RT

Date of Decision Summary:

7 September 2016

Decision Summary Author:

Principal Planner (Policy)

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

 

Written Report

Title:

Report to the Minister – The Penthouse

Date of Written Report:

5 September 2016

Written Report Author:

Mr D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons), FRSA. Solicitor

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

 

Public

Subject:

Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a decision to grant planning permission at The Penthouse, Holmgate Court, Claremont Road. St. Helier JE2 4RT  P/2016/0346

Decision:

The Minister dismissed the appeal. The Minister hereby grants permission to develop land under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of the following development; Remove balustrade and construct wall to South elevation.

 

This permission is granted subject to compliance with the following conditions and approved plans:

  1. The development shall commence within five years of the decision date.

Reason: The development to which this permission relates will need to be reconsidered in light of any material change in circumstance. 

 

B.  The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, drawings, written details and documents which form part of this permission.

 Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved.

 

Approved Plans:

Location Plan

Proposed South Elevation

 

   

Reason(s) for Decision:

The Minister agrees with the recommendation of the Inspector as detailed within his report dated 5 September 2016.

Resource Implications:-

None

 

Action required:

Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.

Signature:

Deputy S Luce

 

Position:

Minister

Date Signed:

 

 

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Hide report
The Penthouse, Holmgate Court, Claremont Road, St. Helier: Planning Application (P/2016/0346): Appeal Decision

Inspector’s Report – Appeal by Holmgate Investments Ltd (Mrs Ann Phillips) – Ref. P/2016/0346

PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002 (as amended)

 

Appeal under Article 108 against a decision made under Article 19 to grant a planning permission

 

REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

 

made under Article 115(5)

by D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA Solicitor

the inspector nominated under Article 113(2) from the list of persons appointed under Article 107

____________________________________________________________

 

Appellants:

 

Holmgate Investments Ltd (Mrs Ann Phillips)

 

Planning permission reference number and date:

 

P/2016/0346 dated 4 May 2016

 

Applicants for planning permission:

 

Mr & Mrs J Vetier

 

Site address:

 

The Penthouse, Holmgate Court, Claremont Road, St Helier JE2 4RT

 

Description of development:

 

“Remove balustrade and construct wall to South elevation.”

 

Inspector’s site visit date:

 

9 August 2016

 

Hearing date:

 

11 August 2016

____________________________________________________________

 

Introduction and procedural matters

 

  1. This is a third-party appeal against the grant by the Department of the Environment under delegated powers of planning permission P/2016/0346 for the development described above. The planning permission is subject to two standard conditions, requiring the development to commence within five years of the decision date and to be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved details.

 

 

Description of the site and its surroundings and the development

 

  1. Holmgate Court is a residential development at the lower end of Claremont Road. The Penthouse is a unique form of residence within the development, having been constructed at first-floor level above a garage block. At its western end near to the road it has a conservatory and an open terrace, which are surrounded by a balustrade. There is mutual overlooking between (a) the conservatory and the terrace and (b) the apartments at the same level that face The Penthouse across the access road to the garages.
  2. Planning permission P/2016/0346 authorises the removal of the balustrade, where it is next to the side of the conservatory that faces the apartments, and its replacement by a wall. The wall would be no higher than the gutter at the edge of the conservatory roof. It would be rendered and coloured to match the rest of the building.

The case for the appellants

 

  1. The appellants are the company responsible for the management of Holmgate Court. The management rules require all the residential occupiers, including the applicants, to obtain the written consent of the company before making structural alterations. The company maintain that the applicants should have obtained the company’s consent before applying for planning permission.
  2. It was established at the hearing that this was the company’s only objection to the approved development and that the company has no concerns about the planning merits of the development.

Other representations

  1. The company have forwarded the results of their consultation with other occupiers of Holmgate Court. There are three objections that relate to the planning merits of the development. These raise concerns about the appearance of the development, the possibility of its approval establishing a precedent for other walls in Holmgate Court and potential disturbance related to construction activity.

The case for the applicants

  1. The applicants dispute that they are in breach of any management rules. They maintain that the wall would improve their privacy and also the privacy of the apartments on the opposite side of the access road. In addition, they state that it will replace a section of the balustrade that has gaps between the pillars which are too wide to stop a small child falling from the terrace.

The case for the Department of the Environment

  1. The Department consider that the wall is consistent with and appropriate to its immediate context, being designed to form a simple continuation of the existing structure. They state that the visual impact of the wall would be consistent with the existing built profile of Holmgate Court and that there would be an improvement in the degree to which mutual overlooking arises. They indicate that the development would comply with all the relevant Island Plan policies.

Inspector’s assessments and conclusions

  1. The Department pointed out, both at the application stage and in their appeal statement, that the company’s concerns about the management rules were not matters relating to the planning merits of the development. I informed the company’s representatives at the hearing that it was not my role to consider whether or not the applicants had complied with the management rules.
  2. Since the company have raised no issues relating to the planning merits of the development, I have assessed it having regard to the three objections from other residents noted in paragraph 6 above.
  3. This would be a small piece of wall that would extend the wall existing to one side of it and below it. It would be finished to match the existing wall, would be in keeping with the existing building and would have little impact on the appearance of its surroundings. It would remove the mutual overlooking that exists between the side of the conservatory and the apartments on the opposite side of the access road.
  4. The erection of the wall would be a minor building operation that is unlikely to result in substantial disturbance to neighbouring occupiers. It could not establish a harmful precedent, since it is an acceptable form of development; there are in any event no obvious parts of Holmgate Court where similar development might take place. I agree with the Department that the relevant Island Plan policies would be complied with.
  5. I have therefore concluded that the appeal should not succeed and that planning permission P/2016/0346 should be not be reversed or varied.

Inspector’s recommendation

  1. I recommend that, in exercise of the power contained in Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended), the appeal should be dismissed.

Dated 5 September 2016

 

D.A.Hainsworth

Inspector

1.

Our sites
Back to top
rating button