Planning and Building (Amendment No.6) (Jersey) Law 201-: 2nd Ministerial Amendment

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 16 June 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2014-0054

Decision Summary Title:

Planning and Building (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201-

2nd Ministerial Amendment

Date of Decision Summary:

13 June 2014

Decision Summary Author:

Planning Performance Manager

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

Planning Performance Manager

Written Report

Title:

N/A

Date of Written Report:

N/A

Written Report Author:

Planning Performance Manager

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

N/A

Subject:

Planning and Building (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201- 2nd Ministerial Amendment to P94/2014

Decision:

The Minister requested that the Greffier of the States lodge a second amendment as detailed in the attached report to P94/2014 Draft Planning and Building (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201- so as to include

An appeal to an inspector following the review of a decision by the Planning Applications Panel
Clarification over the role of the inspector in considering an appeal
The ability to make Regulations to transfer the decision making powers of the Minister in the first instance to another person or persons such as the officers of the Department of the Environment
The coming into force of the Law on such a date(s) as the States appoint

Reason(s) for Decision:

To ensure that the draft legislation scheduled for debate by the States for the new appeals process and does not prejudice potential appellants in seeking a review of a decision by the Planning Applications Panel (PAP) and is adequate in other respects for the consideration of appeals.

Resource Implications:

No resource implications beyond those identified in P94/2014

Action required:

Request that the Greffier of the States takes the necessary action to lodge the amendment ‘au Greffe’ in order to be included in the debate of P94/2014 on 1st July 2014.

Signature:

Deputy R Duhamel

Position:

Minister for Planning and Environment

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Planning and Building (Amendment No.6) (Jersey) Law 201-: 2nd Ministerial Amendment

PLANNING AND BUILDING (AMENDMENT NO. 6) (JERSEY) LAW 201- (P.94/2014): AMENDMENT

1 PAGE 19, ARTICLE 6 –

In Article 6, in the inserted Article 22A, for paragraph (5) substitute the following paragraph –

“(5) The determination of the Planning Applications Panel shall be substituted for the initial decision and –

(a) Article 19(8) shall apply to the determination as it applies to a decision made under that Article; and

(b) an appeal shall lie under Part 7 against the determination –

(i) in the case of a refusal, or of a grant of planning permission subject to conditions, as though it were a decision under Article 19, or

(ii) in a case relating to a condition, as though the condition were attached or imposed under Article 23.”.

2 PAGES 20-30, ARTICLE 7 –

In Article 7, in paragraphs (3) and (5) of the substituted Article 114, for the word “determine” substitute the word “consider”.

3 PAGE 30, ARTICLE 8 –

In Article 8, after paragraph (1) insert the following paragraph and renumber the remaining paragraph accordingly –

“(2) Regulations under paragraph (1) may, in particular, amend the principal Law so as to provide that any function of the Minister under the principal Law (other than a function of making an Order or determining an appeal) is transferred to another person or description of persons.”.

4 PAGE 31, ARTICLE 10 –

In Article 10, for the words “7 days after being registered.” Substitute the words “on such day or days as the States by Act appoint.”.

MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

REPORT

On 11 September 2013 the States Assembly approved P.87/2103 “A New Appeals Process Against Decisions made Under The Planning and Building (Jersey) Law”. The Proposition set out a model for the consideration of appeals by independent inspectors who would then report to the Minister for Planning and Environment to make the final decision.

Following the lodging of “P94/2014 - Planning and Building (Amendment No. 6) (Jersey) Law 201-“ it has become apparent that there needs to be some alterations to clarify the processes and procedures contained in the draft legislation.

Referring to the draft legislation attached to the main proposition;

At Page 19, Article 6 refers to the inserted Article 22A which formalises the current informal practice of requesting reconsideration of a decision by the Planning Applications Panel of a refusal of an application for planning permission taken by officers under delegated powers. The Article has been included to reflect the amendment brought by Deputy Le Herissier during the debate on P87/2013.

The amendment clarifies that any decision made on review by the Planning Applications Panel (PAP) will be substituted for the initial decision made by the department for the purposes of bringing an appeal to be considered via an Inspector. This will mean that the time period to bring an appeal will re-start in all cases on the decision of PAP and the ability to bring any relevant appeal will still be available for all those parties who are entitled to appeal the decision.

At pages 20-30, Article 7 substitutes Article 114 paragraphs (3 & (5) (page 27) it should be clarified that an inspector appointed to look at an appeal is considering the merits of the case and not determining the appeal. It is the Minister who will determine the appeal in light of a report prepared by the inspector on the merits of the case.

At page 30, Article 8a paragraph should be inserted that allows for the Minister to transfer the function of making decisions to another person or persons by way of Regulations. This will enable the Minister to withdraw from all decisions or actions in the first instance to enable the Minister to be a proper appellate body when there is an appeal against a decision or action. This has been an important part of the model proposed and it is felt it should be specified at this point rather than as a consequential amendment. For the purposes of these amendments that person or persons will be within the Department of the Environment as well as those functions that can be carried out by the Planning Applications Panel

At page 31, Article 10 ensures that the Law will come into force at a day or days as the States by Act appoint.

FINANCIAL & MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or manpower implications for the amendment beyond those already identified in P.94/2014

	DRAFT ONLY	Page - 1
	P.##/2014 Amd.