17 Don Farm, Route de Quennevais, St. Brelade

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (16.02.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for 17 Don Farm, Route de Quennevais, St. Brelade.

Subject:	17 Don Farm, La Route de Quennevais, St. Brelade Removal of condition 4 on approval 4/12/9126 B, to allow sale of main house seperately from family unit.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2000-0134	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:		RC/2006/1778
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Maintain refusal of planning permission.
Reason(s) for decision: Inadequate and poor amenity space that does not conform to Policy G2 of the Island Plan 2002.
Action required: Letter to agent
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 16.02.07

17 Don Farm, Route de Quennevais, St. Brelade - maintain refusal

Application Number: RC/2006/1778

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	17 Don Farm, La Route de Quennevais, St. Brelade, JE3 8GA.

Requested by	Mr. R Pilnick	Agent	ARKITECTURE LIMITED

Description	Removal of condition 4 on approval 4/12/9126 B, to allow sale of main house seperately from family unit. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal to remove condition.

Type	Remove/Vary Condition Application

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed amenity space for the flat by virtue of its size and position is unacceptable and therefore fails to satisfy Policy G2 of the Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	23/10/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2 and G3

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	In 1987 permission was granted to extend the 3 bedroomed house to form a dining area to ground floor and bedroom with bathroom ensuite to first floor to create a linked family unit of accommodation. The layout allowed a diner with kitchenette on the ground floor, adjacent to the lounge of the main house, and a bathroom and bedroom on the first floor accessed by an internal spiral staircase. The accommodation was conditioned that it was to be retained as part of the corpus fundi of 17 Don Farm and may not be sold separately therefrom without the prior written permission of the Committee. This condition was a standard one that is no longer used, but it allowed for linked family accommodation that could not stand on its own as regards amenity space. The application that was recently refused showed two openings at ground and first floor blocked up and a corridor at the western side of the house, 1.820m wide as designated amenity space for the one bedroomed flat. The layout of the accommodation showed a lounge-diner, stated as being existing, with kitchenette. The south facing window to the lounge-diner overlooks the garden of the main house, being immediately adjacent to it, although the agent has now stated that this could be obscure glazing. The upper floor bedroom window is immediately above the garden of the main house, presenting a further entirely unacceptable overlooking situation and although the agent claims that this is a common occurrence in new developments, he has not supported this with any evidence. The Department does not agree that this is the case.. Moreover the proposed amenity space is actually currently the side passage along the house, adjacent to the estate road, giving access to the main front garden and at 1.820m wide is wholly unacceptable for a decent standard of recreational space and is not in line with the published standards or the stated intentions of the Minister to improve the minimum standards. The agent states that the applicant does not mind this arrangement as he intends to erect a conservatory. However this would reduce even further the external amenity space and likely result in visually disharmony. As it stands the application demonstrates why the original extension was allowed solely on the basis that it was a linked family unit, i.e. accommodation that could only be inhabited by an extended family who would have full use of all of the garden/ amenity space. It cannot work as fully separate accommodation, by virtue of overlooking, the location of the amenity space and its relationship to the main body of the existing house

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent

Endorsed by		Date	7 February 2007