Beauchamp Farm, La Rue des Fontaines, St. Martin: Planning Application (P/2012/0639): Re-consideration of Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 29 April 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2013-0045			Application Number: P/2012/0639 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Beauchamp Farm, La Rue des Fontaines, St Martin, Jersey, JE3 6EF		Date of Decision Summary:		22/04/2013
Decision Summary Author:	Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		Planner
Written Report Title :	Officer Report – P/2012/0639		Date of Written Report:		14/02/2013 (most recent Dept. report)
Written Report Author:	Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Beauchamp Farm, La Rue des Fontaines, St Martin, Jersey, JE3 6EF Application Description: “Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning permission: Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 1 No. dwelling”.
Decision(s): The Minister maintained the decision of the Department to refuse the above application.
Reason(s) for Decision: Having regard for all of the relevant considerations (including the applicant’s submissions and Department report), and having undertaken a site visit, the Minister is not prepared to grant Planning Permission for the proposed development. This is a Request for Reconsideration of the original decision to refuse planning permission. One of the original reasons for refusal was that the applicants had not fully considered the possibility of the site being adapted and re-used for alternative employment purposes. Having visited the site, and considered the matter, the Minister is satisfied that the site has very limited potential to be re-used for employment purposes. Accordingly, the Minister is not unduly concerned at the loss of ‘employment land’ per se. However, the Minister does not accept the arguments put forward in support of the construction of a new house in place of the existing sheds as he does not believe that this will result in a sufficient degree of environmental enhancement as required by Green Zone policy. The Minister has indicated that he would be minded to accept the removal of the existing sheds and for this part of the site to be restored to a natural condition, should the applicants wish for this to occur. In addition, he has indicated that he would consider the possibility of part of the adjacent Beauchamp Farm site (which has already been approved for redevelopment into three dwellings) to be redeveloped in an alternative manner in order to accommodate an additional dwelling unit, but only if the removal of the sheds can be delivered first. Accordingly, Reason 2 – which was included within the original Decision Notice (and which related to the loss of employment land) – is to be removed. The amended Decision Notice will refer to just Reason 1 as follows; The site is located within the Green Zone wherein there is a presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose.Whilst there is the potential under paragraph c) of Policy NE 7 to allow the redevelopment of commercial sites as an exception to policy where it can be demonstrated that such redevelopment would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains and make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape character, in this particular instance, paragraph b) states that the demolition and replacement (of modern agricultural buildings) with a new building for another use will not be permitted. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy NE 7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Beauchamp Farm, La Rue des Fontaines, St. Martin: Planning Application (P/2012/0639): Re-consideration of Minister

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2012/0639

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Beauchamp Farm, La Rue des Fontaines, St. Martin, JE3 6EF

Requested by	Beauchamp Property Holdings Limited	Agent	MS Planning Ltd

Description	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning permission: Demolish existing commercial buildings. Construct 1 No. dwelling.

Type	Major Application

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons for Refusal	The site is located within the Green Zone wherein there is a presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose.Whilst there is the potential under paragraph c) of Policy NE 7 to allow the redevelopment of commercial sites as an exception to policy where it can be demonstrated that such redevelopment would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains and make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape character, in this particular instance, paragraph b) states that the demolition and replacement (of modern agricultural buildings) with a new building for another use will not be permitted. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy NE 7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. There is a presumption against the loss of existing commercial sites unless a good case is made as to why it would be inappropriate, or financially unviable, for the use to remain. In this instance, whilst information has been received to demonstrate a lack of interest, from potential alternative commercial users, for the existing premises, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the site is unsuitable for re-use for any alternative employment uses, as required. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy E 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011.

Determined by	PAP

Date	10/12/2012

Zones & Constraints	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area Potential Listed Building

Policies	GD1 General Development Considerations GD2 Demolition and Replacement of Buildings GD7 Design Quality NE 7 Green Zone E 1 Protection of Employment Land (see original officer report for full commentary around these policies)

Summary

The application is for the redevelopment of a mixed commercial / agricultural site in a countryside location in St Martin. The intention is to demolish a pair of sheds and construct a new 1½ storey dwelling in their place.

The application represents a significant reduction in building footprint and the new dwelling is modest in size and well-designed in a traditional style which compliments the countryside setting of the area and also the adjacent Listed building group, Beauchamp Farm.

This is a Green Zone location wherein there is a presumption against development. Policy NE 7 does potentially allow for the redevelopment of commercial sites as an exception to policy where it can be demonstrated that the redevelopment of existing commercial sites would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains and make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape character. However, the redevelopment of agricultural buildings is not permitted under the policy.

Under policy E1 of the Island Plan, there is also a presumption against the loss of existing commercial sites unless a good case is made as to why it would be inappropriate, or financially unviable, for the use to remain.

In this instance, the applicants have provided evidence of a lack of interest in the premises from potential alternative commercial users. However, they have not explored the possibility of the site being reused for any alternative employment uses and so therefore the requirements of E1 have not been satisfied.

On balance, although there are potentially environmental gains to be secured from the redevelopment of the site and the new house is well designed, the application does not satisfy the requirements of the Policies NE 7 or E 1.

Recommendation

Maintain REFUSAL

Comments on Case	Agent’s RFR letter The applicant’s agent has submitted a well-argued letter of appeal (copy attached), within which a number of matters are raised, including; the proposal does demonstrate a significant environmental improvement in accordance with Policy NE 7; there is no on-site employment at present within the site – therefore, Policy E 1 is not applicable; an alternative employment use would not be granted planning permission; other employment sites have recently been granted permission for redevelopment; the existing building is completely unsuitable for re-use; Policy E 1 does allow for removal of employment uses in certain circumstances for instance where these cause deterioration of the local residential environment – this is the case here; the continued presence of these sheds on the site effectively blights the adjacent site which has been approved for redevelopment; In response to the appeal, the Department would make the following comments; environmental improvement is more than simply a matter of percentage reduction – the existing building does not cause significant harm (a low building and a low-key use) and significant improvements must be demonstrated; in respect of Policy E 1, the supplementary guidance which was issued by the Minister in June 2012 does in fact make reference to uses such as a warehousing and storage in discussing the need to maintain employment sites; it is not ‘inconceivable’ (as suggested) that an alternative employment use, involving redevelopment of the site, would be considered; of the two examples cited of where the Minister has allowed the redevelopment of employment sites, the first – Living Legend – did in fact retain an employment use for the site in the form of a retirement / nursing home. In the case of the Chateau Plaisir site, a sufficiently strong argument was made for the Minister to be able to able to accept that the site was not a viable employment generator in the long term. Moreover, there were substantial mitigating circumstances and the environmental improvements that the scheme would result in were considered to be the overriding factor. It should also be noted that this application was considered before the introduction of the new SPG. As always, each case must be considered on its merits; the Department does not accept that the presence of these sheds on the site, which are low key in appearance and use, are the sole reason why development on the adjacent site is not progressing; the Department accepts that the existing sheds are in a poor condition – the reason for refusal clearly makes reference to the fact that options for alternative uses have not been fully considered; the SPG has a clearly established process for considering options for the reuse or redevelopment of the site – this process has not be followed in this instance and the applicants are jumping to conclusions about the lack of any kind of employment-use demand for the site. It should be noted that the Employment Land policy is one of the Minister’s top priorities.

Recommendation	Maintain REFUSAL

Reasons for Refusal	The site is located within the Green Zone wherein there is a presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose. Whilst there is the potential under paragraph c) of Policy NE 7 to allow the redevelopment of commercial sites as an exception to policy where it can be demonstrated that such redevelopment would give rise to demonstrable environmental gains and make a positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the landscape character, in this particular instance, paragraph b) states that the demolition and replacement (of modern agricultural buildings) with a new building for another use will not be permitted. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy NE 7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. There is a presumption against the loss of existing commercial sites unless a good case is made as to why it would be inappropriate, or financially unviable, for the use to remain. In this instance, whilst information has been received to demonstrate a lack of interest, from potential alternative commercial users, for the existing premises, the applicants have failed to demonstrate that the site is unsuitable for re-use for any alternative employment uses, as required. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy E 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Original officer report Agent’s RFR letter Agent’s Planning Statement + Site Photographs Agent’s Waste Management & Marketing Statement 5 consultation responses 1 letter of representation Email correspondence between Dept. & Applicant 1 further letter from agent / applicant

Endorsed by		Date