Lisburn, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 Lisburn, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade.

Subject:	Lisburn, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade Convert existing (disused) plant/machine building to 1 bedroom dwelling
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0164	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/2005/1496
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: Whilst the policies of the Island Plan do allow the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential units, it is not at all costs and it is considered that in this particular case the quality of how this would be provided would not result in an acceptable form of living accommodation for the reasons stated on the refusal notice.
Action required: Inform Agent
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 07.02.06

Lisburn, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2005/1496

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Lisburn, Tabor Heights, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. JWilliams	Agent	Mr K E Vibert

Description	Convert existing (disused) plant/machine building to 1 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal, by virtue of the immediate proximity of the shared driveway, and the proximity of the property to the west, would result in poor quality living and amenity space for residenital purposes. 2. The proposal is out of character with the surrounding area which is generally of reasonably sized dwellings in large gardens.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	03/10/2005

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G1 G2 H8

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Pre-application advice was given to a different agent, that the conversion of this building to residential use was not acceptable. Whilst the reuse of redundant buildings in the Built-Up Area is supported by the Island Plan, this is not at the expense of the living standards for occupiers of the accommodation or its impact on the character and form of the surroundings area. In this instance the Planning Consultant has made lengthy representations as has the neighbour who has objected to the development. In his case the Planning Consultant has referred in particular to Policy G1 which seeks to integrate new development within the existing built-up area and wherever possible re-use existing buildings. The Consultant also refers to Policy H8 which states that change of use to residential use will normally be permitted with the built-up area and in his view development proposals can therefore only be denied if they cause demonstrable harm to the area. However the wording of the Policy states that permission may be permitted provided that the proposal will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area; will not have an unreasonably impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment; is appropriate in scale form massing density and design. In assessing any application all of the above must be taken into account and it is considered that the proposal does not satisfactorily meet policy criteria. The Island Plan also seeks to protect and enhance the local character of the urban community. It is considered that in this case, because of the siting of the building immediately alongside a shared driveway (to the main house) which is only 3.5m wide; this would result in very poor living and amenity standards for residential occupiers. Presently there is no form of useful screening between the two properties but there is no reason why some form of substantial screen would not be erected. The proposed dwelling would be 37.9sqm with an amenity space of 80sqm which is significantly more than is required by the Minister’s stated minimum standards. It is stated that this accommodation would be for family members for the long term; however, this is not a matter that can be taken into consideration as the owners could sell at any time. The main thrust of the neighbours representation relates to the fact that in their view, the proposal does not fit into the stated criteria of policies G1, G2 and H8 as a dwelling here would be out of character with the surrounding area in general. Whilst the re-use of redundant buildings is normally supported and the formation of a dwelling with associated amenity and parking provision would not demonstrably harm the character of the area, it is out of character with the area and in particular would result in poor living standards for the occupiers. It therefore considered that there are no new planning grounds upon which decision should be overturned.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As set out previously.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letters from Planning Consultant Letter from neighbour

Prepared by	Date	25 January 2006

Endorsed by	Date