L'Etacq Ironworks, Route de L'Etacq, St. Ouen

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01.08.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for L'Etacq Ironworks, Route de L'Etacq, St. Ouen.

Subject:	L’Etacq Ironworks, St Ouen Remove existing structures and construct 2 new dwellings
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0106	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/2005/0551
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Lawrence Davies
Decision(s Refusal maintained.
Reason(s) for decision: Scheme fails to demonstrate the necessary site enhancement under Policy G15. This is a very sensitive site in the Green Zone and St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework and this is a poor quality scheme which represents an over-development of the site.
Action required: Write to applicant to inform of decision. Suggest complete rethink for any site redevelopment. A revised application should limit any development to a single unit of accommodation, traditional in style and finish. A lower intensity of use of the site is essential. A model would be useful to accompany any fresh application.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 01st August 2006

L'Etacq Ironworks, Route de L'Etacq, St. Ouen - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/0551

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	L'Etacq Ironworks, La Route de L'Etacq, St. Ouen.

Requested by	Mrs J Langlois	Agent	ALLAN MILLER ARCHITECTS

Description	Remove existing structures and construct 2 new dwellings. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed redevelopment of this commercial site, by virtue of the height, design and visual impact of the proposed building, fails to demonstrate a substantial environmental gain and significant contribution to the character of the area. Therefore, the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy C5 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	08/05/2006

Zones	Green Zone St Ouen's Bay Special Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations G3 – Quality of Design C5 – Green Zone C7 – St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	Essentially, this RFR has come about because the agent feels aggrieved at not having been given the opportunity to negotiate in order to resolve any problems that the department had with the original scheme. He accepts the changes which have been suggested (subsequent to the refusal notice being issued, a meeting was held between the department and the agent to discuss the next step) but believes that it ought to have been possible to incorporate these changes at the time of the application, rather than that they should require an altogether new application. He cites his recent application for development at the adjacent ‘Leatherland’ site where the department did negotiate a series of changes to the submitted scheme whilst the application was ‘live’. However, this development was a conversion and only relatively minor amendments were required to make the scheme acceptable. For this development, which involves a replacement building, the policies of the Island Plan clearly place the onus on the applicant to demonstrate an enhancement of the site. This is particularly important given that the site is located within both the Green Zone and the St Ouen’s Bay Special Area. In its original form the scheme failed to demonstrate just such an enhancement and therefore, in accordance with the approach of the Minister, the application clearly failed to meet the requirements of the policy and was refused. During the meeting between the agent and the department, the agent suggested that the level of change required of the scheme in order for it to be acceptable is proportionally similar to that required of the ‘Leatherland’ scheme, and that, for this reason, negotiation ought to have been possible. This argument is rejected; whilst the meeting resulted in a scheme which is some ways similar to the original refused scheme, it will require a new set of drawings to be issued which illustrate that in fact a significant number of changes were necessary to make the scheme acceptable. This justifies the decision to refuse the original application.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	1. The proposed redevelopment of this commercial site, by virtue of the height, design and visual impact of the proposed building, fails to demonstrate a substantial environmental gain and significant contribution to the character of the area. Therefore, the scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy C5 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Background Papers	 1:2500 Site Plan  Agent’s RFR letter  File Note of meeting held between agent & planning officers following the issuing of the original refusal notice  Original consultation responces from Environment Department, TTS Drainage & TTS Highways  2 no. original letters of representation  selected correspondence from agent and Planning Department.

Endorsed by		Date