Homewood, Le Mont Sohier, St. Brelade: Planning Application (RW/2014/0548): Determination of 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 14 October 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2014-0099

Application Number: RW/2014/0548

Decision Summary Title :

Homewood, Le Mont Sohier, St. Brelade

Date of Decision Summary:

10th October 2014

Decision Summary Author:

Richard Greig

Planner

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

(State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

Richard Greig

Planner

Written Report

Title :

RW/2014/0548

Date of Written Report:

10th October 2014

Written Report Author:

Richard Greig

Planner

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

(State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)

Public

Subject: Homewood, Le Mont Sohier, St. Brelade, Jersey, JE3 8EA

Replace 5 No. windows on South elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for refusal of planning permission.

Decision(s):

At the Ministerial Meeting of 15th August 2014 the Minster received the Department report and heard comment from the applicant in relation to the subject application. The Minister then deferred his decision pending a site visit to view a sample of the proposed replacement window unit.

A site visit was conducted on 8th September 2014 by the Minister, accompanied by the case officer, who were met on site by the applicant and were presented with a small sample of the proposed replacement (14.5mm thick double glazed) window unit. The Minister considered that the proposed sample, by virtue of the depth of the double glazed unit, resulted in thicker glazing bars and ultimately could not replicate the design detailing of the existing, historic single glazed windows. As a result the Minister advised the applicant to prepare an alternative window sample comprising a slimline double glazed timber unit which was capable of replicating the existing, historic form.

In response to the meeting of the 8th September 2014 and following discussions with the manufacturers the applicant contacted the case officer to voice concern as to the clarity of the glazing and the prohibitive cost of installing slimline double glazed units. In light of which the applicant expressed his wish to obtain the Minister’s agreement to installing single glazed timber windows which would be designed to replicate the existing historic windows in all respects.

With this in mind the Minister reviewed the proposals and, notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to demonstrate that the existing windows are beyond practicable repair, considered that the provision of a single glazed timber units, would satisfactorily address his original concerns regarding the design detailing. As such, the Minister has resolved to approve the planning application subject to a condition (as attached below) requiring the prior approval of large scale joinery details.

Condition no1.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, large scale drawings of the proposed replacement windows units, of no less than 1:20, comprising elevation and section details, designed to replicate the existing historic windows in all respects, inclusive of a traditional weight and pulley mechanism, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment and thereafter be implemented and maintained wholly in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that special regard is paid to the interests of protecting the architectural and historical interest, character and integrity of this protected building and its setting, as directed under the provisions of policies HE1, HE2, SP4 and GD1 of the Revised Island Plan (2011).

Reason for Decision:

The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard to all of the material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against policies HE1, HE2, SP4 and GD1 of the Revised Island Plan (2011) wherein the policy emphasis is to ensure that development promotes a high standard of design which preserves the character and integrity of protected heritage assets.

The approved application is to remove the existing, historic, single glazed timber windows and replace with new single glazed timber window units.

Notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to demonstrate that the existing windows are beyond practicable repair, the Minister considers that the provision of replacement single glazed timber window units, designed to replicate the existing, historic windows in all respects, would not adversely affect the special interest or character of this protected building and its setting.

It is considered, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular the design and detailing of the proposed replacement windows, that the proposals will preserve the character and integrity of this heritage asset, as directed under the provisions of policies HE1, HE2, SP4 and GD1 of the Revised Island Plan (2011) and a grant of planning permission is thereby justified.

Resource Implications:

Nil

Action required:

Notify Applicant

Signature:

Deputy R C Duhamel

PLeg / AS Initials

Position:

Minister for Planning and Environment

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Homewood, Le Mont Sohier, St. Brelade: Planning Application (RW/2014/0548): Determination of Minister

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: RW/2014/0548

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Homewood, Le Mont Sohier, St. Brelade, JE3 8EA.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs R.I.G. Hardcastle

Description	Replace 5 No. windows on South elevation.

Type	Minor Application

Original Decision	REFUSED


Reasons	1. Policies HE1 and HE2 of the Island Plan, 2011 place an emphasis upon preserving the historic fabric of protected buildings. In the first instance a clear justification must be provided to demonstrate that repair is not possible. No such justification to support the removal of these historic window units has been provided. It is considered the loss of these integral historic features fails to preserve the special interest of this protected building whilst the introduction of double glazed units fails to replicate the detailing of the historic windows, contrary to policies GD1, SP4, HE1 and HE2 of the Island Plan, 2011 and Supplementary Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Note 2, Windows and Doors in Historic Buildings (2008).

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	15/05/2014

Zones	Built-Up Area Green Backdrop Zone Primary Route Network Potential Listed Building

Policies	Policy GD1 - General Development Considerations Policy SP4 - Protecting the Natural and Historic Environment Policy HE1 - Protecting Listed Buildings and Places Policy HE2 - Protection of Historic Windows and Doors Supplementary Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Note 2, Windows and Doors in Historic Buildings (2008).

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

No clear justification has been submitted to demonstrate that the historic windows are beyond practicable repair and that replacement is the only option. Moreover, the proposed introduction of double glazed units fails to replicate the detailing of the historic single glazed windows and is clearly contrary to policy by failing to preserve the architectural and historic character and integrity of this protected building.

The Department’s Historic Environment Team has objected to the proposals on grounds of lack of adequate justification and, would not support double glazed units as adequate replacements for traditional single glazed units.

If adequate justification had been given, some replacements may have been permissible, but not in a double glazed form.

As it is, the proposals have to be seen as being contrary to Policies GD1, HE1 and SPG2 of the Island Plan, 2011.

Comments on Case	The applicants commented on the refusal as follows (the Department’s response follows each point in italics): 1. The applicants find it difficult to accept why the proposed replacement windows are unacceptable; The policies of the Island Plan and SPG2 are unambiguous in requiring a clear justification for replacements and also in stating the presumption against inappropriate detailing of any proposed new units. Such justification was requested by the Case Officer but was not forthcoming. 2. The subject elevation contains a series of latter 20th and 21st century details/features; None of the windows are of a 20th or 21st C period. There may be some modern rainwater goods and roof coverings, but the application did not relate to these. 3. The refusal is wrong and perverse and therefore unreasonable. This is the opinion of the applicants, but the Department considers that the refusal was reasonable when considered against the established policies of the Island Plan and SPG2.





Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Original Officer Report dated 15th May 2014 RFR letter dated 16th June 2014

Endorsed by		Date