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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (05/03/2008) regarding: 1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade. Form roof over garage to create additional habitable space. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008-0066
Decision Summary Title:	1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade		Date of Decision Summary:	14/03/08
Decision Summary Author:	Jonathan Gladwin		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written and Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:	Jonathan Gladwin
Written Report Title:	1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade		Date of Written Report:	19/12/07
Written Report Author:	Jonathan Gladwin		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: 1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade. Form roof over garage to create additional habitable space. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): The Minister decided to uphold the Refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for Decision: This item was originally discussed at a public meeting held on the 18th January 2008, but the decision was deferred so that the Minister could visit the site. The site visit took place on the 05 March 2008, after which the Minister decided to uphold the refusal of planning permission.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		Position:
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade - Reconsideration.

Application Number: P/2007/1074

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Mr. P Maloney	Agent

Description	Form roof over garage to create additional habitable space. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	The proposed extension by virtue of its design, roof form and massing would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy G2 (i), Policy G3 (i) and (ii) and Policy H8 (ii), (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. The impact of the proposed extension on the property to the north, by reason of loss of light, is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Policies G2 (ii) and G3 (i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	30/07/2007

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2 – General Considerations G3 – Quality of Design H8 – Housing Development within the Built Up Area

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The application was for a first floor extension above the existing garage and as an adjunct to this, a two storey extension to the side of the existing utility and above to link through into the existing first floor of the property. This application followed the previous refusal and dismissal at RFR for a first floor extension over the garage (P/2006/2359). The height of the proposed first floor extension has been reduced from the previously refused application by 1.5m that has resulted in the roof form changing from a simple pitch to the roof pitch being lopped off to form a flat roof. The applicant states that: The proposal causes no loss of light and the Planning Department only put loss of light later in the application process, after first saying this had been overcome. There are other examples of flat roofs that have been approved, such as at Mon Desir and the applicant have tried their best to bring the ‘tudor style’ to the fore. The compromise offered by planning would not be realistic as too expensive, loss of light to our house, lose our utility room, long access hall and lose two parking spaces. The neighbouring property ‘Richmond’ is west facing and they are insisting on keeping their 15ft high hedge for privacy should not leave us in a position to suffer as a result. In response: Initially it was considered by myself that this loss of light reason had been overcome. Subsequently the Agent for the application contacted the Director of Planning during the application process for the Director to look over the application. Once reviewing the case, the Director of Planning was of the view that there would still be a loss of light to the neighbouring property and hence loss of light was added as a reason for refusal. The lopping off of the pitch and the expanse of flat roof and the awkward first floor link to the side of the extension into the existing property, resulted in the overall effect of a poor design quality that is out of keeping with the appearance of the property and surrounding area. The proposed extension is set back from the main property and as a result of this, as well as the above considerations, is poorly integrated into the existing property. The property ‘Mon Desir’ has been previously extended (Planning permission RP/2006/2494), but the flat roof shown on the photo was part of a much larger flat roof expanse that was largely replaced by the addition of a first floor extension in the aforementioned planning permission. The flat roof shown was not permitted as part of the above planning application and therefore can not be viewed as a comparable case. The department still believe that there is a workable solution to this proposal that would be likely to be received positively and that is bringing the extension and garage forwards so as to tie in with the existing property better and moving it further away from ‘Richmond’. There would remain adequate car parking and sufficient light would still enter the rooms on the side of the property as there are windows to the front and rear of the property. The neighbouring property ‘Richmond’ is to the north of the application site, the proposal would cause particular loss of light when the sun would be to the south behind the proposed extension and in the winter months when the sun is lower in the sky. The row of trees is not in the ownership of ‘Richmond’ and so is not in their control.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	The proposed extension by virtue of its design, roof form and massing would be harmful to the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy G2 (i), Policy G3 (i) and (ii) and Policy H8 (ii), (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. The impact of the proposed extension on the property to the north, by reason of loss of light, is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Policies G2 (ii) and G3 (i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from applicant dated 24 October 2007 Letter from Mr & Mrs Masurier, owners of Richmond’ received 10 December 2007.

Endorsed by		Date