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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (31.05.07) to maintain planning refusal for St. Aubin's Cafe, La Neuve Route, St. Brelade.

Subject:	St Aubin’s Café, La Neuve Route, St Brelade Extension to existing lean-to conservatory.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0183	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and Oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Gabrielle Way
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/0160
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Gabrielle Way
Decision(s Maintaining Refusal of planning permission.
Reason(s) for decision: 1. The proposed extension to the timber conservatory, by virtue of its design, scale and position, is considered to result in an insensitive relationship with this modest blockwork building, and is therefore considered to cause unacceptable harm to its character, contrary to Paragraph (i) of Policy G2 and Paragraph (ii) and (iii) of Policy G3, of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The timber conservatory extension results in development which obstructs public views to the foreshore and the sea, and is therefore contrary to Policy BE11- Shoreline Zone, of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Action required: Advise Agent/Applicant and offer further advice: that subject to good design the Department would consider a more temporary style canvas option, but that this should blend appropriately with the existing extension.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 31st May 2006

St. Aubin's Cafe, La Neuve Route, St. Brelade - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2006/0160

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	St Aubins Cafe, La Neuve Route, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Ms. J Roff	Agent	Mr S J Miller

Description	Extension to existing lean-to timber conservatory. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permssion.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed extension to the timber conservatory, by virtue of its design, scale and position, is considered to result in an insensitive relationship with this modest blockwork building, and is therefore considered to cause unacceptable harm to its character, contrary to Paragraph (i) of Policy G2 and Paragraph (ii) and (iii) of Policy G3, of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The timber conservatory extension results in development which obstructs public views to the foreshore and the sea, and is therefore contrary to Policy BE11- Shoreline Zone, of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	03/03/2006

Zones	Built-Up Area Shoreline Zone Tourist Destination Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations BE11 – Shoreline Zone TR2 – Tourism Destination Areas

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	This is a proposal for a 5 degree pitch timber conservatory extension to the eastern side of the existing block work café, which used to be the public toilets in St Aubin’s car park. The area where the structure is proposed is currently used for the café’s outside seating area. Letter from applicant Ms Roff states, in her letter dated 26th April 2006, that there is an existing flat roofed conservatory which sits below the ridge line of the building, and any ‘unacceptable harm’ has already been caused by the existing approved conservatory. The intention is, ‘quite simply to extend this structure around the east side of the building, in proportion to the current conservatory and block work building’. She goes on to suggest that the conservatory is, ‘approximately 85% glazing, making it difficult to believe it obstructs public views to the foreshore and the sea’. She states that Tourism and Property Holdings subsequent to the refusal have assured her of their backing for the application. Ms Roff goes on to say that no letters of objection were received. Considerable re-development has taken place next door which has, ‘dramatically changed the built landscape and generating considerable controversy’. The increase in covered floor area is, ‘financially vital to ensure that the café can remain open throughout the year and that I may be able to provide continued employment to my core staff’. Comments on letter The proposed conservatory is likely to have a detrimental affect on the character of this modest block work building, furthermore it is proposed in a prominent position and would be clearly seen from public views. Policy BE11 states that. ‘there is a presumption against extensions to existing buildings where such developments will fill gaps or obstruct public views to the foreshore or sea. Particular attention will therefore be paid to the siting, massing and height of any proposed development.’ Policy TR2 states that, ‘there will be support for al fresco activities associated with cafes, subject to their being no unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring uses or unacceptable public safety issues.’ Support for facilities will normally be permitted provided that, they (i) will not unreasonably affect the character of the area… (vii) they are appropriate in scale, form, massing, density and design to the site and its context’. Unfortunately, this proposal is considered to result in a scheme whereby the timber structure would wrap around the building, which would disturb the simple nature of the east elevation and is not considered appropriate in this context and would obstruct public views to the foreshore and sea. The fact that the structure is glazed does not mean that the views to the sea will remain. The existing conservatory is positioned to the south side of the café, on the promenade side and does not therefore disturb the simple gable end character of the building, or affect shoreline views. It is clearly an extension which does not wrap around the building. The former Battricks Boatyard site was approved as a replacement building and is considered to reasonably meet the policies set out in the Island Plan, 2002. Presumably Ms Roff took on the concession as a low key hjigh season seaside café, but the fact that this conservatory is likely to bring her more income is not a key planning consideration if on balance the proposal is considered to detrimentally affect the character of the building. The existing conservatory can be used for this all year round.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from Ms Julia Roff dated 26th April 2006

Endorsed by		Date