La Rive House, La Valle de Rozel, St. Martin

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (19.01.07) to approve planning permission with 1 condition for La Rive House, La Vallee de Rozel, St. Martin.

Subject:	La Rive House, La Vallee de Rozel, St. Martin Proposed in-ground swimming pool and concrete retaining walls.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0177	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:		P/2006/1183
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning consent	Written report – Author:		Tim Furmidge
Decision(s) Approval – with 1 condition. Condition The concrete retaining walls for the new swimming pool hereby approved shall be faced in pink granite and be maintained in this condition thereafter. Reason To ensure that the new development is sympathetic in appearance to safeguard the visual amenities of the area.
Reason(s) for decision: It was felt that a condition could be imposed after having regard for the comments set out by the agent that the decision was harsh and the applicants could have been given an opportunity for a landscaping scheme to be submitted to make the scheme more acceptable. A condition was imposed to face both the retaining walls in granite, as the comments made by the agent were considered reasonable in this case to overcome the reason for refusal. This achieved a more acceptable scheme which meant that the proposal would be more in keeping and less intrusive and, would therefore, no longer be considered to result in a development which would be prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone.
Action required: Planning permit to be sent out and conditioned accordingly. (Permit sent out 22nd January 2007.)
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 19.01.07

La Rive House, La Valle de Rozel, St. Martin - approval with 1 condition

Application Number: P/2006/1183

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	La Rive House, La Vallee de Rozel, St. Martin.

Requested by	Mr S. Willing	Agent	FLORIDA POOLS

Description	Proposed in-ground swimming pool and concrete retaining walls. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The size, scale, sitting and appearance of the proposed pool and retaining walls would result in a development which would be prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone, and contrary to Policy C5 in the 2002 Jersey Island Plan which seeks to protect the character of the countryside. The proposals also therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of policies G2, (General Development Considerations) and G3 (Quality of Design) of that Plan.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	01/09/2006

Zones	Building Of Local Interest Green Zone

Policies	G2 General Development Considerations, G3 Quality of Design & C5 Green Zone.

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	In the agent’s report of the 20th October 2006, he states the following reasons for the Request for Reconsideration: The proposed swimming pool was purposefully sited on the upper slope so it was as discreet as possible within the valley setting. Proposed planting would also screen the lower retaining walls from the public realm and the Green backdrop setting. The applicants did not want to place it in the historic restored walled garden, which is the most level part of the site, as it would harm the integrity of this garden. Nor did they want to place it adjacent to the highway for noise, safety and privacy reasons.  Although the applicants did consider that the walled garden and lands adjacent to the highway would be a poor place to place the pool the proposed position, which we would be in agreement with, however the chosen location on the side of the hill is very prominent from the highway, could be easily seen by passers by, especially in an elevated position with high rendered retaining walls in front and behind the proposed pool. It is not unreasonable for a property of this type to have a swimming pool and this is recognised by Policy C5 relating to the Green Zone.  A swimming pool within a curtilage of a residential garden would normally be acceptable, unless the scale/design would detract from, or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the Green Zone, which in the case of this application, with the large retaining walls, was considered visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone. The agent considers the only reason for refusal was the concern about the proposed retaining walls the swimming pool would require in the sloping location. The lower wall would be approx 2 metres (6ft 6ins) in height and would a substantial planted screen along its entire length and some planting already exists in front of this area, which would assimilate the development in to the existing landscape setting. The upper retaining wall is set further back and because of line of site would not be seen from road.  This would be correct, although the proposed retaining walls at the front and rear of the pool would be approximately 2 metres in height, however it would be approximately 15.25 metres long, with the level section of approximately 10.8 metres wide. The position of the pool and walls may be placed far back on the site but due to the overall length of the retaining walls and the lack of information regarding a proposed planting scheme around the walls (after a discussion with the agent due to concerns over visual impact with the first scheme), however even with the resubmission of revised plans, it was still considered that the proposal still would result in a development which would be overly prominent and visually harmful to the character of the Green Zone. The agent considers the refusal particularly harsh, for instance a condition could have been placed requiring a landscaping scheme to be submitted to safeguard the surrounding landscape from the pool.  Although he does admit that this information could have been set out more clearly from the outset to persuade the planning officer into taken a more favourable view; however this was not submitted with the revised proposal and no information was submitted regarding a waste management scheme, to explain what would happen to the waste soil/material from the excavation of the pool. Overall the proposal was deficient in detail and information and would of lead to a detrimental effect on the character of the area, a landscaping/planting condition would not have addressed are concerns over this development in the Green Zone. Therefore the proposal, due to the above, fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies G2 General Development Considerations, G3 Quality of Design and C5 Green Zone of the 2002 Jersey Island Plan.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As original refusal

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan, Agent’s report dated 20th October 2006 with 4 photographs.

Endorsed by		Date