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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (14/09/2009) regarding: Environment Impact Assessment - Oyster Sets at Royal Bay of Grouville.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0159			Application Number: EIA 59 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Jersey Oyster Grouville		Date of Decision Summary:		11 September 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Richard Glover		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Request for Reconsideration		Date of Written Report:		11 September 2009
Written Report Author:	Richard Glover		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Oyster Sets – Royal Bay of Grouville Request for Reconsideration of the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment
Decision(s): An Environmental Impact Assessment is required.
Reason(s) for Decision: The information required to make an informed decision is not currently available. Adopting a precautionary principle it would be inappropriate to conclude that the effect of the development would not be significant. An EIA should be required
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Oyster Sets at Royal Bay of Grouville - Environmental Impact Assessment

Application Number: EIA 59

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Oyster Sets, Royal Bay of Grouville

Requested by	Trevor Le Cornu Seymour Oyster Company Ltd	Agent	Trevor Le Cornu Seymour Oyster Company Ltd

Description	Set an oyster bed/ table.

Type	Environmental Impact Assessment

Original Decision	EIA is required

Determined by	Delegated Authority

Date	4 June 2009

Zones	RAMSAR site Marine Protection Zone

Recommendation

EIA is required

Comments on Case	In accordance with Schedule 1(11)(12) of the Planning and Building (Environmental Impact) (Jersey) Order 2006 the application for any development on land covered or, in the normal course of tides, from time to time covered by sea water requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to be prepared. However, Article 2(4) of the of the Planning and Building (Environmental Impact) (Jersey) Order 2006 states that development mentioned in Schedule 1 is not prescribed if the Minister is satisfied that by virtue of factors such as nature, size or location it would be unlikely, if carried out, to have a significant effect on the environment, either of Jersey or elsewhere. The applicant has requested that the Minister reconsider the need for an EIA under Article 2(4) and has submitted a letter in favour of their case. This letter has been circulated to the Environment Division, Transport and Technical Services and Health Protection for their advice on whether the development would be likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The conclusion of the consultees and in particular the Fisheries Section of the Environment Division is that the information required to make an informed decision is not currently available. Adopting a precautionary principle it would be inappropriate to conclude that the effect of the development would not be significant. An EIA should be required

Recommendation	Confirm that an EIA must be carried out

Reasons	The information required to make an informed decision is not currently available. Adopting a precautionary principle it would be inappropriate to conclude that the effect of the development would not be significant. An EIA should be required

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date	11 September 2009