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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (24/02/2009) regarding: Chantemerle, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville - Planning Application - Request for Reconsideration.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0037			Application Number: P/2007/2865
Decision Summary Title :	Chantemerle, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, , Grouville, ,		Date of Decision Summary:
Decision Summary Author:	Senior Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		Senior Planner
Written Report Title :	P/2007/2865		Date of Written Report:		20 January 2009
Written Report Author:	John Nicholson		Written Report : Public or Exempt? )		Public
Subject: Chantemerle, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, , Grouville, , Change of use of land to domestic curtilage. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): At the Ministerial Meeting of 30 January 2009 the Minister heard a Request for Reconsideration in relation to application reference P/2007/2865. At that meeting, the Minister indicated he was minded to support the Request for Reconsideration but deferred his decision to enable clarification of the site history. Following consideration of the history, the Minister has resolved to refuse the Request for Reconsideration as being contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. However, the Minister also decided that particular evidence brought in this case meant that the land could historically be considered as a garden. Whilst the Minister acknowledged that the provisions of the Planning and Building (General Development) (Jersey) Order 2008 would not apply to this land, he confirmed that he would be minded to approve an application for a swimming pool if the applicant was to submit such an application.
Reason(s) for Decision: Permission has been refused as the proposal is contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 which establishes a presumption against such development within the Countryside Zone.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Chantemerle, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville - Planning Application - Request for Reconsideration.

Application Number: P/2007/2865

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Chantemerle, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville.

Requested by	Mr. A. Baillie	Agent	MS Planning Ltd

Description	Change of use of land to domestic curtilage. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	The proposed change of use of the land to domestic curtilage is contrary to Policy C6 and Policy C13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002

Determined by	Director Of Planning

Date	20/08/2008

Zones	Countryside Zone

Policies	C6 Countryside Zone

Summary / Conclusions

The original Officer Assessment, the applicants RFR case, and background papers are provided in full with this Report.

The application seeks to change the use of Field 554 to domestic curtilage. This is contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, which establishes a presumption against all development within the Countryside Zone.

The determination therefore requires an assessment of ‘other material considerations’ to consider if it merits over-riding the policy position.

The response to the applicant’s case is set out in full in this report. It is the view of the Department that:

there is already a reasonable garden;
there is no unacceptable issue in relation to lack of privacy;
the lack of public prominence is a very limited material consideration, where the countryside has already been eroded (as per the ‘Ledo’ case)
there have been a series of applications on the site, which have included two directly comparable refusals.

The balance of material considerations therefore offers support to the presumption against development, and there are no other exceptional circumstances which merit over-riding the policy position. Therefore the recommendation of the Department is that the refusal is maintained, as the proposal is contrary to Policy C6.

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Accompanying this Request for Reconsideration are the original Officer Assessment Sheet for the delegated determination, and the Request for Reconsideration received from the applicant, with the relevant background papers. The applicants statement sets out that indeed there is a presumption against such development, and so generally focuses on the case that: The current curtilage is inappropriately small for the size of dwelling that now occupies the site; The garden is not private, as it adjacent to the road; The subject field is not publicly visible, it is not part of the open countryside so there will be no detrimental impact on character; The previous use was not agricultural, so no agricultural land will be lost. There is a series of ‘precedent’ for comparable approvals. In response, dealing with the matters in turn: The current curtilage is in the region of 600 sq m (approx 20m by 30m). In any context this can be considered reasonable, particularly when considered as already being 12-times the Planning Minimum Standard. It should also be appreciated that the relationship between the building and site coverage is as a result of numerous proposals from the current applicant, representing significant incremental development, therefore the position is entirely self made. The position of the garden adjacent to the road is not unreasonable – as above, the garden is already large, and is the approved position sought by the current applicant during the history of previous applications. There has therefore already been a significant amount of incremental development within the Countryside Zone. The road is not a particularly busy thoroughfare, (for either vehicles or pedestrians) and the road / site interface is also subject to planting. The planning context is formed by Policy C6, which establishes a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. However, the policy then sets out a series of possible exceptions which may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside. Any extension of domestic curtilage represents a diminution of the rural context, particularly where the countryside has already been eroded. This has previously been established in the ‘Ledo’ case and strongly reinforces the default position within the policy as the presumption against such development. The applicant has noted that LC&ADS identified that when the land was transacted it was “domestic garden”. However, the position of LC&ADS does not represent any form of planning land-use consent under the Planning Law. Indeed evidence provided by the applicant (letter from Mr Payn and historic aerial photograph) suggest the previous use was for market gardening. Certainly the land did not, for planning purposes, form part of the domestic curtilage of any dwelling. It is was not domesticated, neither was it part of a curtilage (as the previous dwelling had a formal domestic curtilage to the south – in the position of the existing garden of Chantemerle). Indeed, in 1998 the same applicant described the land as “a field” in application reference 3132/B. As LC&ADS have confirmed the land is not registered as agricultural, the Department cannot require it is maintained in that use. However, in dealing with this application, it should also be made clear that the Department is not requiring the return of the land to productive agriculture, rather, that it is not domesticated. There is no formal concept of ‘precedent’ in Planning Law. Every assessment is unique - in relation to the nature of the site and its setting, the details of the proposal and the planning policies in place at the time. Every application is determined on its own merits, in accordance with Article 19 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Against the requirements of the Law other (potentially similar) applications may be “material considerations” in the determination, but the applicant has provided no information to assess the circumstances of the quoted cases, which will all be contrary to policy – they are therefore of limited weight. Within this context, the applicant has failed to report on the planning history of this site. If anything, this forms a material consideration of greater weight than their quoted cases, in that it is directly relevant to the application site. From the lengthy planning history the relevant applications are: 3132/B sought permission for the change of use of field 554 to domestic curtilage and was refused permission in December 1998 due to loss of agricultural land. The officer’s report noted the property already has an east/west curtilage, with the land to the north being separated, having a path and 2 sheds with part as an orchard but “no authority for use as a garden”, P/2003/1255 included an extension of the domestic curtilage into the southern part of Field 554 (6.5m from the building) as part of an application for a sunroom extension to the north of the house. This was approved in August 2003. P/2003/2823 was an application for the extension of the domestic curtilage into part of Filed 553 (to the west) and this was approved in February 2004, with conditions to ensure it was defined by a fence or hedge. P/2007/1097 sought permission for a swimming pool in Field 554. This was refused in August 2007, due to its position outside the domestic curtilage, and so being contrary to C6 and C13. The situation on site today has therefore, in part been created as a result of non-compliance with conditions attached to an existing permit (P/2003/2823). The Department have already given ‘exceptional’ approvals (P/2003/1255) and established an unequivocal position regarding further development on the balance of the subject Field 554, with two previous refusals for domestication (3132/B and P/2007/1097).

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	The application is contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, which establishes a presumption against such development within the Countryside Zone. The balance of material considerations offers support to the presumption against such development, and there are no other exceptional circumstances which merit over-riding the policy position.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Officer Assessment Applicants RFR submission Background papers

Endorsed by		Date	20 January 2009