Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (03/12/2007) regarding: Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade. Demolish existing garage and store. Construct new extension to west elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2007-0299		Application Number: P/2007/0858 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning Permission	Date of Decision Summary:		27/11/07
Decision Summary Author:	Jonathan Gladwin	Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written and Oral	Person Giving Oral Report:		Jonathan Gladwin
Written Report Title :	Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning Permission	Date of Written Report:		08/11/07
Written Report Author:	Jonathan Gladwin	Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade Demolish existing garage and store. Construct new extension to west elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): At a public meeting held on the 23rd November 2007 the Minister decided to uphold the refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for Decision: The decision to refuse was upheld for the same reason (s) for refusal as given on the Decision Notice. Namely that: 1. The proposed extension by virtue of its design, scale, proportions and relationship with the existing building would be harmful to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy G2 (i), (ii) and Policy G3 (i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:			Position:
Date Signed:			Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 23 November 2003

Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade - request for reconsideration of refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2007/0858

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Carberry, La Route Orange, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Mr. N Pinel	Agent	Martin L Dodd & Sons Ltd

Description	Demolish existing garage and store. Construct new extension to west elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed extension by virtue of its design, scale, proportions and relationship with the existing building would be harmful to the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy G2 (i), (ii) and Policy G3 (i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	18/05/2007

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2 – General Considerations G3 – Quality of Design H8 – Housing Development Within the Built Up Area

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The proposed extension is single storey with a flat roof and measures 12.4m deep by 5m wide. This replaces an existing single storey garage with a flat roof. The proposed extension doubles the size of the existing garage by extending a further 4.5m forwards and 2.1m rearwards of the existing garage. The applicant states that: There is already a flat roof extension and are just replacing this with a larger flat roof extension. The existing extension abuts the boundary and the new extension will be relocated 800mm away from the boundary and so will improve the relationship between the neighbours house and Carberry. The proposed extension would be to a similar height as the boundary walls and due to its small scale nature will have no impact on amenity of area. In response: The proposed extension is doubling in size the existing poorly designed extension, far from improving the current appearance of the building, the proposal is worsening it. In the light of the higher design standards being sought by the Minister, this is an entirely unacceptable approach. The proposed extension would be brought forward in line with the existing main property and overall being increased in size, thus appearing more dominant in the street scene. There has been no attempt to tie this extension in with the existing building by the use of a simple lean-to roof for example. It is acknowledged that the proposed extension is being brought further in from the party boundary, but the overall size of the proposed extension is still doubling in size. There is no harm to the neighbour from this existing single storey extension being against the boundary due to its scale and that the neighbouring property is set 2.5m (approx) from the party boundary. Therefore there is no material planning gain from the moving of the extension off the boundary. The fundamental problem is the design and scale of the proposed extension and not its impact on the neighbouring property. The proposed extension would be higher than the boundary wall and by it being brought forward and doubled in size will make it far more prominent on the appearance of the area and will have a poor relationship with the existing building. It has been discussed with the Agent, that an extension set back from the front of the building with a lean-to roof or even a 1 and a half/two storey extension continuing on the roof form of the main building, may be acceptable, but the Agent decided not to pursue these options, hence this RFR.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter and photo dated 11 July 2007 from the Agent.

Endorsed by		Date