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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (07.02.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for the vacant site, Cotil de Haute Clair, St. Helier.

Subject:	Vacant Site, Le Cotil de Haute Clair, Bellozanne, St. Helier. Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0187	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/2005/1273
Written Report Title:	Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Uphold the refusal of the planning application.
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify agent of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 07/02/06

Cotil de Haute Clair, Vacant site, St. Helier - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1273

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Vacant Site, Le Cotil de Haute Clair, Bellozanne, St Helier.

Requested by	Mr. T Buckley	Agent	DYSON & BUESNEL ARCHITECTS

Description	Proposed new 3 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. The size, scale and siting of the proposal would be harmful to the visual character of the area, and prevent the natural landscape from being the dominate element in the scene, which currently is a area of mature landscaping within the Green Backdrop Zone, contrary to Policy BE10 of the 'Jersey Island Plan', 2002. 2. The proposal would result in the loss of visually important trees and vegetation, and does not present satisfactory proposals for new planting, which is considered to be harmful the character of the area which is located in the Green Backdrop Zone, contrary to Policy BE10 of the 'Jersey Island Plan', 2002. 3. The proposed development, by virtue of its size, height, position on the site and its relationship with the neighbouring properties to the south, results in an unacceptable overbearing impact, harmful to the amenities of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	05/10/2005

Zones	Built Up Area Green Backdrop Zone BLI (Le Cotil De Haute Clair)

Policies	Policy BE10 – Green Backdrop Zone The Green Backdrop Zone is designated on the Island and Town Proposals Maps. Within this zone, development will only be permitted where: (i) the natural landscape remains the dominant element in the scene; (ii) it pays particular regard to the retention of existing vegetation; (iii) it presents satisfactory proposals for new planting; and (iv) it accords with all other principles and policies of the Plan.

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Green Backdrop Zone Policy BE10 allows for development only where the four criteria listed above are met. The applicant’s claim that the spirit of Policy BE10 is met through the retention of the existing mature trees to the north and east boundary that would screen the site “from any distance”. A number of the more mature trees will be retained but in order that the landscape remains the “dominate element in the scene” as required by item (i) the resulting balance between built development and the natural environment must be considered. The submitted north elevation and the site plan clearly demonstrates that the existing plant coverage will be significantly altered by the construction of a two storey building and the creation of a parking area. The area of the site for the house and the car park will have no vegetation as opposed to the mixture of scrub and semi-mature plants and trees that presently exists. Even with the retention of the trees to the north boundary and the lower level planting on the eastern boundary, the dominance of the natural vegetation from both close and distant views will be lost. It should be noted that the semi-mature trees to the eastern boundary form an important part of the vegetation of the site and it is unlikely that the 1500mm strip of land will allow there retention or long term health; or the addition of “significant” landscaping as is claimed. With regard to landscaping, it can be concluded that a large proportion of the scrub and planting will be removed whilst only limited new planting introduced. In addition the dwelling will also be added to the landscape. Overall, it cannot be argued that Policy BE10 has been satisfied. Impact on neighbouring property to the South This is considered to be a marginal judgement however; the building is proposed to be 2600mm high along the boundary. Whilst this would have only a limited detrimental impact on the property to the southwest, the only amenity area for the flat to the south east is immediately adjacent to the proposal. Letters of representation A number of letters of representation have been made to the Minister. It should be noted that the development was not refused on the basis of overlooking or on the basis of the design. Furthermore, the issues of soakaways, vehicular access, disruption during construction and connection to a private foul sewer are not matters for consideration under the Planning Law.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 25th November 2005. Design Statement Letter of objection dated 21/12/05 Letter of objection dated 20/12/05 Letter of objection dated 11/12/05 Letter of objection dated 13/12/05 Letter of objection dated 06/12/05

Endorsed by

Date