Comment on P.48/2006 by the Treasury and Resources Minister.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (22/05/2006) regarding Comment on P.48/2006 by the Treasury and Resources Minister.

Subject:	Comment on P.48/2006 by the Treasury and Resources Minister
Decision Reference:	MD-TR-2006-0069		Exempt clause(s):	n/a
Type of Report: (oral or written)	Written		Person Giving Report (if oral):	Ray Foster – Head of Corporate Capital
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a		Report File ref:	1/22/05/06/RF
Written report – Title	Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848,851,853 and 854, St Lawrence (P.48/2006).
Written report – Author	Jeremy Harris, Policy Advisor, Chief Minister’s Dept (Report prepared for meeting of Council of Ministers on 25.05.06)
Decision(s): To comment on P.48/2006 as follows: "The Minister for Treasury and Resources notes the comments of the Minister for Planning and Environment that there is a likelihood that legal costs will be awarded against the department. Such costs would need to be met from within the department's cash limits and would be likely to result in a reduction in front line service provision".
Reason(s) for decision: To ensure States Members are aware that the proposal, referred to in the attached report to the Council of Ministers, has a potential cost to the States for which no specific budget provision has been made.
Action required: To inform the States Greffe to present the above comment on behalf of the Treasury and Resources Minister.
Signature: (Minister/ Assistant Minister)		Date of Decision: 22 May 2006

Comment on P.48/2006 by the Treasury and Resources Minister.

Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, St Lawrence (P.48/2006)

1. The Council of Ministers is asked whether it wishes to comment on the report and proposition of the Connétable of St. Lawrence on ‘Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, St Lawrence’ (P.48/2006), lodged ‘au Greffe’ on 12th May for debate on 6th June, which has been referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Standing Order 27. This Standing Order states that ‘the Greffier of the States shall refer a proposition lodged by a member of the States in his or her own right to the Council of Ministers for a report’. A copy of the proposition is attached, together with two sets of comments from the Planning and Environment Minister.

2. In the proposition the States are asked to agree that the Planning and Environment Minister should be requested to bring forward for approval by the Assembly an amendment to the Island Plan 2002 that would state that the site comprising Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence should accommodate a maximum of 97 homes (as opposed to the indicative figure of 97 homes as stated in the Island Plan).

3. In his comments on the proposition, the Planning and Environment Minister notes that the application process has been lengthy, with the original application for 140 homes having been submitted in November 2004. Revised plans have been submitted for 129 homes, and these have been the subject of extensive consideration by the Planning Department.

4. The Minister also notes that the application has been submitted on the basis of a development brief (i.e. the planning authority’s framework of requirements for the development of the site, as required by the Island Plan), and the applicant could therefore legitimately expect an application to stand a reasonable chance of success where it complies with that brief. A States’ decision to approve the proposition could add complexity to what is already a difficult case. If the Planning Applications Panel were to reject the application for 129 homes primarily on the grounds that the States proposition had been adopted, this would open the decision to legal challenge, and the applicants would have a strong prospect of success on appeal to the Royal Court, i.e. on the grounds that the decision was unreasonable in planning terms and was inconsistent with the development brief approved by a former Committee.

5. The argument will no doubt be made in the States that the number of dwellings proposed by the applicant is significantly greater than the number given in the Island Plan. However, it should be noted that the Island Plan states that the figures given for yield on each of the zoned sites in the Island Plan ‘… are only an indication of yield’, and that the actual numbers would need to be arrived during the process of preparing the development brief. The development brief does not actually specify a maximum number of dwellings, but sets out a whole range of planning criteria that the applicant would be expected to meet when submitting an application. These criteria relate to numerous planning considerations and include among other things the configuration of the site, car parking, and noise buffering.

6. The Treasury and Resources Minister has been invited to comment on the matter, and it is understood that he will be publishing the following comment in the next couple of days –

‘The Minister for Treasury and Resources notes the comments of the Minister for Planning and Environment that there is a likelihood that legal costs will be awarded against the department. Such costs would need to be met from within the department's cash limits and would be likely to result in a reduction in front line service provision’.

7. These comments do highlight the difficulty that would arise if the States were to intervene at this late stage in the process. The applicant has prepared a plan which is generally in accordance with the planning brief and which addresses the requirements of the Island Plan, and it could be argued that a decision by the States to support a maximum of 97 dwellings will not help in the planning process, particularly as the Panel may find it difficult to go against a States decision.

8. If, on the other hand, the States were to reject the proposition, the Planning Applications Panel would be in a better position to consider the application on its own merits, having regard to all the relevant planning criteria (including the density and number of dwellings) and the application would be determined on that basis, without the risk of opening the States up to the likelihood of legal action in the event of a refusal.

8. Conclusion and recommendation: A States decision to approve the proposition would seem to be undesirable, particularly in view of the potential legal costs. It is therefore recommended that that Council should issue a comment along the following lines –

‘The Council of Ministers notes the comments of the Minister for Planning and Environment that a decision to support the proposition and judge the current application in accordance with the proposed alteration to the Island Plan is likely to result to result in the States becoming liable to legal costs. The Council does not believe it would be desirable for the States to be placed in this position, and it recommends that the proposition be rejected.

The Council notes that the application will in due course be considered by the Planning Applications Panel, and the Panel will have regard to all the relevant planning criteria when reaching a decision, including the density and yield of the site.’

Jeremy Harris,

Policy Adviser

17th May 2006