La Retraite, La Neuve Route, Trinity

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (03.05.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for La Retraite, La Neuve Route, Trinity.

Subject:	La Retraite, La Neuve Route, Trinity. Demolish existing wood store & garages, workshop and build dormer cottage.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0093	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/2005/1707
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Lawrence Davies
Decision(s Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for decision: as previously 1. The proposed development, owing to its location and impact, would be harmful to the character of this part of the Countryside Zone, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. This policy presumes against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. 2. The proposed development, owing to its location and impact, would be harmful to the character and setting of La Retraite which is included on the Environment and Public Services Committee's 'Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey' as a Building of Local Interest. As such this proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Interim Policy HB8, 1998 and of Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, that the current state of use and appearance of the two outbuildings whose demolition is proposed under this application is sufficiently detrimental to the appearance and setting of La Retraite and the surrounding countryside, to allow for an exception to be made to the policies noted above through the creation of a new dwelling. It is considered that the introduction of a new residential unit would, in itself, be equally harmful to the historic and environmental setting of this location.
Action required: Agent to be notified
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 03/05/2006

La Retraite, La Neuve Route, Trinity - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2005/1707

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	La Retraite, La Neuve Route, Trinity.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. G CBenest	Agent	Quérée Architects

Description	Demolish existing wood store & garages, workshop and build dormer cottage. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development, owing to its location and impact, would be harmful to the character of this part of the Countryside Zone, and therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. This policy presumes against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. 2. The proposed development, owing to its location and impact, would be harmful to the character and setting of La Retraite which is included on the Environment and Public Services Committee's 'Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey' as a Building of Local Interest. As such this proposal fails to satisfy the requirements of Interim Policy HB8, 1998 and of Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. It has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, that the current state of use and appearance of the two outbuildings whose demolition is proposed under this application is sufficiently detrimental to the appearance and setting of La Retraite and the surrounding countryside, to allow for an exception to be made to the policies noted above through the creation of a new dwelling. It is considered that the introduction of a new residential unit would, in itself, be equally harmful to the historic and environmental setting of this location.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	21/12/2005

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C6 – Countryside Zone NR1 – Water Pollution Safeguard Area G15 – Replacement Buildings G13 – Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The proposal is to demolish two separate buildings – one a garage and the other a disused workshop and shed, and in the place of the garage construct a 3 bedroom dwelling. The driveway which approaches the farm complex is long at about 80m, and although the workshop is visible from the public road it is not high impact. Similarly, the garage can be viewed from a distance across fields. Whilst the garage and workshop are not of any particular architectural merit, they are no different to many other ancillary rural buildings and as such are not harmful to the appearance of either the countryside or within the setting of a registered building group. Policy C6 makes exception and allows for the redevelopment of commercial buildings but only in those circumstances where more substantial environmental gains would arise. The creation of an additional dwelling in this location would not meet the test for the policy exception as, although it would not cause severe harm, it would not secure any benefit for the location – the impact therefore would be roughly neutral. The agent has suggested that the buildings in question, whose demolition is proposed here, are significant commercial buildings in their own right and that a substantial environmental benefit would arise from their demolition and the creation of a new dwelling in their place. However, as can be seen, this is disputed – it is considered that an environmental enhancement has not been demonstrated (as is required under Policy C6). Furthermore, the agent has also called into question the department’s view that the proposed dwelling would be harmful to the historic setting of La Retraite (a BLI) and suggested that this is not the case given its use of traditional materials, design and siting. However, in terms of design and siting, the department would contend that the opposite is true and that a new unit in this location would be harmful. Mr and Mrs Benest have already secured several units from the existing traditional outbuildings and if they wish to remain on the site, they should ensure that one of these units is designed / adapted to meet with their needs. The agent has suggested that this is an irrelevant point to make and that the proposed unit should be judged upon its merits and not against a background of previously approved development. However, the point was made to demonstrate the extent of development already permitted on the site and to suggest that to permit further development in this manner would be to further erode the historic and environmental setting of the building. As an additional point, the layout of the new proposed unit, with regard to vehicle manoeuvring space, appears to impinge upon the amenity space for one of the previously approved units.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	All as previously

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan RFR letter from MSPlanning

Endorsed by		Date