Refusal of 129 Homes at Bel Royal.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (14/08/2006) regarding P/2004/2247: Fields 848, 851, 853, 854, 861, 862A and 863A, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence.

Subject:	P/2004/2247: Fields 848, 851, 853, 854, 861, 862A and 863A, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0111	Exempt clause(s):		None
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		None
Telephone or e-mail meeting	n/a	Report File ref:		8/37/01 and P/2004/2247
Written Report Title:	n/a	Written report – Author:		Principal Planner
Decision(s): The Minister for Planning and Environment, in respect of the development of 129 Category ‘A’ homes, road widening and improvement, drainage infrastructure, public amenity space and a community building at Fields 848, 851, 853, 854, 861, 862A and 863A, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence determined to refuse the application.
Reason(s) for decision: 1. Overdevelopment The proposed housing development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the indication of yield included in the Island Plan, resulting in a development which is harmful to the character and amenity of the area and which will lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, contrary to Policies H8 and G2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. Site Boundary The proposed housing development extends beyond the boundaries of the site zoned for Category ‘A’ housing purposes and encroaches into an area identified as ‘Important Open Space’, contrary to Island Plan Policies H2 and BE8. 3. Education There is unreasonably inadequate capacity in the local States schools at Bel Royal Primary School and Les Quennevais Secondary School to accommodate the likely increase in the number of school aged children in their catchment areas generated as a consequence of the proposed development. 4. Noise Impact The future occupants of the proposed housing development are likely to be exposed to unacceptable noise nuisance from the operations conducted at the nearby premises of Jersey Steel Co. (1935) Ltd due to its proximity and the failure of the applicants to demonstrate their ability to make adequate provision for noise mitigation. 5. Design The design of the proposed new housing development is unacceptable in that it fails to adequately reflect relevance to Jersey, particularly in terms of form and architectural details; is insufficiently spacious; and would present an unsatisfactory appearance, detrimental to the character of the area; contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002 and the published ‘Design Principles’ of the Minister for Planning and Environment. .
Action required:  Notify applicant, objectors and other interested parties of decision
Signature: (Minister/ Assistant Minister)			Date of Decision: 14 August 2006

Field 287, Rue du Saut Falluet, St. Peter- maintain refusal

Application Number: PP/2006/1010

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Field 287, La Rue du Saut Falluet, St. Peter.

Requested by	Mr. B CMasefield	Agent	ARKITECTURE LIMITED

Description	Proposed 1 1/2 storey dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning Principle

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal is contrary to Policy C6 of the Island Plan 2002 which states that this zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	26/06/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone

Policies	C6

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The site lies to the west of the former Mermaid Hotel and to the east of the Airport and is accessed by La Rue du Saut Falluet. In the applicant’s case he refers to correspondence which took place between himself and Policy & Projects when the new Island Plan 2002 was being prepared. Although Mr Mansfield argued that in his view, this land is inside a built-up area, that was not the final view of those preparing the Plan and subsequently the States themselves. Indeed Mr Masefield was advised at the time that Field 287 is regarded as being in the countryside area, which is outside the built-up area of Les Quennevais and The Airport and as such it is proposed that the site will continue to be the subject of restrictive countryside policies. As part of his case Mr Masefield refers to the fact that the Committee has however, in 2003, approved a new 61 bed hotel on the site of the car hire compound (and a little beyond) to the north west of The Mermaid Hotel (now Lakeside Residential Home) and to the north of Field 287. In approving the hotel (against the advice of the Officers) the Committee considered that the Tourism industry, and therefore the community as a whole, would benefit from the construction of a new hotel, close to the Airport. The hotel has not yet been built. There are no such community benefits associated with this application and there are no grounds that would justify a reversal of the decision to refuse consent.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from Mr Masefield

Endorsed by		Date	7 September 2006