La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence: Planning Application Appeal

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 2 September 2013:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2013-0097		Application Number: RW/2013/0388 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence, Jersey, JE3 1EX	Date of Decision Summary:	30/08/2013
Decision Summary Author:	Planning Performance Manager	Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	written	Person Giving Oral Report:	Planning Performance Manager
Written Report Title :	RW/2013/0388 – Consideration of Grounds of Appeal	Date of Written Report:	30 August 2013
Written Report Author:	Planning Performance Manager	Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: Consideration of an appeal to the Royal Court against the decision to refuse permission to install timber windows to north, east and west elevations of the existing dwelling at La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence, Jersey, JE3 1EX
Decision(s): Following the refusal of planning permission for replacement windows at La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence the applicant submitted an appeal to the Royal Court which was received by the Minister on 12 August 2013. The Grounds of Appeal were reviewed and considered to carry sufficient merit to re-consider the decision and support the proposals in light of the Grounds of Appeal. As the proposal is now before the Royal Court the Minister wished to indicate to the Royal Court that he wished to concede the appeal and issue a decision allowing the proposal.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Grounds of Appeal raise arguments that are accepted. These Grounds highlight that the wrong tests were applied in determining the application and planning permission ought to have been forthcoming.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012 -

Application Number: RW/2013/0388

(If applicable)

Resource Implications:

none

Action required:

Request the Law Officers Department to take the necessary steps to enable a Consent Order to be issued by the Royal Court under Article 113 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. On reciept of that Order that a decision notice should be issued granting permission to install timber windows to north, east and west elevations of La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence as indicated on the plans submitted with application RW/2013/0388.

Signature:

Deputy R C Duhamel

MD Authorised by

Position:

Minister for Planning and Environment

Date Signed:

2 September 2013

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

2 September 2013

La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence: Planning Application (RW/2013/0388): Minister concedes with applicant's appeal to Royal Court

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

CONSIDERATION OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Application: RW/2013/0388

Installation of replacement windows at La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence

Introduction

An appeal has been submitted by Miss. E Hollywood to the Royal Court in accordance with Article 113 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against the decision to refuse application: RW/2013/0388 which sought permission to install timber windows to north, east and west elevations of La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence

The application was refused under delegated powers by officers of the Department on 20 May 2013 and the decision confiirmed by the Planning Applications Panel (PAP) on 25 July 2013 following the submission of a Request for Reconsideration (RfR). The reason for refusal was

The proposed replacement windows would by virtue of their method of opening, glazing patterns and details detract from the intrinsic architectural quality and historic value of the building, which is included on The Minister for Planning and Environment's "Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey" as a Potential Listed Building, contrary to Policy HE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

In considering the Grounds of Appeal it is always important to give sufficient regard to the arguments raised and if appropriate modify a positon regarding the issues. In this case it is felt that due consideration might well lead to a different decision on the proposal.

Comments on the application and the Grounds of Appeal

This application proposed the replacement of 7no. windows on a dwelling that was cerated by the conversion of a former agricultural building that is identified as a Potential Listed Building. The existing windows are not original having been installed in the building when it was converted from an agricultural barn to a dwelling. The submission seeks to install top hung casement windows, 12/16 glazing patterns with stuck-on glazing bars replecating the existing windows in the bulding. The new windows are exact copies of the windows currently installed in the property.

The proposal was previously considered unacceptable as it was felt that the method of opening, glazing patterns and details of the windows would fail to replicate the historic windows that would have originally been found in this 19th Century building. In this context the proposal would be contrary to Policy HE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

The grounds of appeal have highlighted the fact that the window openings in the building and the windows themselves are not histoiric having been insetred into the building when the former barn was converted to a dwelling in the early 1980s. The building was Listed in 1992 and the windows were inserted prior to Listing and there presence did not hinder its Listed status and were an established part of the character of the building at its time of Listing.

The original application was refused solely on the grounds of Policy HE2 of the Island plan 2011. This states

“All existing historic windows in historic buildings should be repaired, whreever possible, using materials and details to match the exisiting

The replacement of historic windows and doors in Listed Buildings and in historic buildings in Conservation Areas, where consent is required for such work will not be approved unless there is clear justification to show that repair is not possible

Where repair is impractical and where replacements are being replaced again replacements that do not carefully replicate or restore the historic windows or doors in terms of materials, method of opening, proportions, dimensions, visual weigth, decorative details and finish wil not be approved.”

The grounds of appeal take each of these paragraphs and relate them to the proposals in the application.

“All existing historic windows in historic buildings should be repaired, wherever possible, using materials and details to match the exisiting

The windows that are proposed to be replaced are not historic having only been installed at the time of the conversion of the building to a dwelling in the early 1980s. Further, the openings in which the windows sit are not historic having been created at the time of conversion. As such these sections of Policy HE2 does not apply

The windows are not replacing previously replaced windows, rather they are replacing the original window frames that were inserted in the new window openings in the early 1980s. As such any new windows could not replicate or restore the historic windows that would have been in the property as there were no such windows in the building.

The Grounds of Appeal conclude that as the application was refused solely on the basis of Policy HE2, which was not relevant to the case, then the decision is flawed and should be overturned.

Notwithstanding the grounds of Appeal referring only to Polcy HE2 the application was also considered as a Request for Reconsideration (RfR) where other Policy reasons for refusal were raised. In particular the application was considered to be contrary to Policies SP4 and HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 as well as Policy HE2.

Whilst the RfR process has no statutory status it is a widely accepted way of pursuing an effective appeal against a decision made under delegated powers. Successful pursuits of an RfR reasults in an approval but there must also be a recognition that reasons for refusal can be upheld and indeed the Planning Applications Panel could add reasons for refusal to the previous decision if members of the Panel thought they were appropriate. As such it is appropriate to asses the prooposal in light of the Policies highlighted in the RfR decision as well as the original decision.

Policy SP4 states

“A high priority will be given to the protection of the Island’s natural and historic environment. The protection of the countryside and coastal character types; Jersey’s biodiversity; and the Island’s heritage assets – it’s archaeology, historic buildings, structures and places – which contirbute to and define its unique character and identity will be key material considerations in the determination of planning applications. The enhancement of biodiversity will also be encouraged.”

In the pre-amble to the Policy (para2.33) there is established a general presumption in favour of the preservationof the character and integrity of protected buildings.

Policy HE1 (extract) states;

“There will be a presumption in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character and integrity of Listed buildings and places and their settings. Proposals which do not preserve or enhance the special or particular interest of a isted building or place and their setting will not be approved.

Permission will not be granted for

4. extensions, alterations and changes which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest or character of a Listed building or place and its setting.”

In light of the arguments submitted in regard of Policy HE2 - that the windows are in openings that are not historic and the windows themselves are not histioric - the character of the building will be preserved as it was when Listed. Similarly the interest or character of the building will not be affected by the replacement of non-historic windows in non-historic openings. As such in conceding that Policy HE2 does not apply it must be conceded that Policy SP4 and Policy HE1 similarly do not apply.

Conclusion and next steps

In light of the above considerations it seems apparent that the wrong tests were applied in determining the application and planning permission ought to have been forthcoming. However there no longer remains a current application to be determined although the appeal remains to be considered by the Royal Court.

If it is considered that the proposal should be granted permission the Minister can request that the Royal Court orders the Minister to grant permission subject to such conditions as the Royal Court may specify (Article 113(3)(b) Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002). This process, known as a Consent Order, would be administered and progressed through the Law Officers Department.

Recommendation

That the Minister concedes the appeal and request the Law Officers Department to take the necessary steps to enable a Consent Order to be issued by the Royal Court and then on reciept of that Order a decision notice is issued granting permission to install timber windows to north, east and west elevations of La Carrosserie, 8 Les Ormes Farm, La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, St. Lawrence as indicated on the plans submitted with application RW/2013/0388.

30 August 2013