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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (11/04/2006) regarding Request for Reconsideration of a Planning Decision - Erection of single dwelling at Ribera Vista, Tower Road, St. Helier.

Subject:	Request for Reconsideration of a Planning Decision Erection of single dwelling at Ribera Vista, Tower Road St Helier
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0037	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/1729
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of a Planning Decision Erection of single dwelling at Ribera Vista, Tower Road St Helier	Written report – Author:		Richard Glover
Decision(s To 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 applicant/agent of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 11 April 2006

Request for Reconsideration of a Planning Decision - Erection of single dwelling at Ribera Vista, Tower Road, St. Helier.

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Ribera Vista, Tower Road, St. Helier.

Requested by	. VK Holdings Ltd	Agent	ROGER NORMAN DESIGN CONSULTANTS

Description	Construct one bed unit. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and position, be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site resulting in a building which would overshadow and be overbearing on surrounding properties. The proposal would result in outlooks from the proposed and existing properties that would be harmful to the amenity of the occupants of those properties and also add a from of development that would be at odds with the established character of the area to the detriment of amenity. Access to the proposed dwelling would result in vehicular movements in very close proximity to neighbouring properties that would be likely to be harmful to the amenity of the occupants of those properties. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy H8 of the Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	23/12/2005

Zones	Built Up Area Green Backdrop Zone

Policies	H8 – Housing Development in the Built up Area

Recommendation

To maintain refusal of the application

Comments on Case	This proposal involves the insertion of a very small one bedroom property into the rear garden area of a well established residential property in a wholly residential suburb of St Helier. The proposal in itself meets what proscriptive standards that exist in adopted policy documents relating to room sizes and parking provision. However in achieving these standards the quality of the built form that will result is ignored. In effect this proposal represents an overly contrived scheme that will result in diminution of amenity of occupants of existing properties surrounding the site and indeed a compromised amenity for potential occupants of the dwelling as proposed. In the letter stating the case requesting Reconsideration the substantive issues raised relate to the opinion that the scheme meets particular proscriptive standards but does not particularly investigate the effect of the development on the amenity and character of the area by the introduction of the proposed property. The introduction of everyday living activity, vehicular movements, screen fences and walls along with an actual building will undoubtedly have an effect on the environs of the site and this will inevitably change the character of the area in a harmful way. The Request makes reference to permission being granted on an adjacent site (to the west) as a context within which the application in hand should be considered. However that scheme was materially different from the current proposal as it did not impact in the same way on the established private amenity areas of surrounding properties. The Request also refers to the formation of hardsurfacing areas to accommodate vehicles on the adjacent site, but this would not have required planning permission.

Recommendation	Refuse planning permission

Reasons	1. The proposed development would, by virtue of its size and position, be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site resulting in a building which would overshadow and be overbearing on surrounding properties. The proposal would result in outlooks from the proposed and existing properties that would be harmful to the amenity of the occupants of those properties and also add a from of developemnt that would be at odds with the established character of the area to the detriment of amenity. Access to the proposed dwelling would result in vehicular movements in very close proximity to neighbouring properties that would be likely to be harmful to the amenity of the occupants of those properties. As such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy H8 of the Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter detailing the Request for Reconsideration Officer Report form the original determination

Prepared by	Richard Glover	Date	3 March 2006

Endorsed by		Date