Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville: Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (06.05.2009) to maintain refusal of planning permission for replacement of timber windows at Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008 -0083			Application Number: RW/2008/0618 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville		Date of Decision Summary:		24/04/09
Decision Summary Author:	Elizabeth Stables		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Previous written report, updated by oral report		Person Giving Oral Report:		Peter Le Gresley
Written Report Title :	RW/2008/0618 (deferred RFR)		Date of Written Report:		14/10/08
Written Report Author:	Elizabeth Stables		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville Replace timber windows to Upvc windows. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission This case was presented to the Minister at his Ministerial Meeting on 23/10/08. The decision was deferred pending a review of the Registration of the building by MERLAG. Their report has now been received and accepted by the Assistant Minister on 03/04/09. This concludes that the building should remain on the Register as a BLI.
Reason(s) for Decision: This building remains on the Register as a Building of Local Interest. The proposal to remove 11 timber framed windows on the north, east and west elevations and replace these with upvc would remain contrary to Policy G13 and is therefore unacceptable, hence the recommendation to maintain refusal. To comply with Policy G13 any proposed replacements should be painted timber.
Resource Implications:
Action required: Notify applicant.
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville: Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission

Application Number: RW/2008/0618

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Homestead, La Vielle Rue, Grouville.

Requested by	Mr. E Gavey	Agent	None

Description	Replace timber windows to Upvc windows. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Replacement Windows

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reason	The introduction of upvc window frames to this very prominent Registered building would be inappropriate and damaging to the historic character of the original building, contrary to Policy HWD2 and G13(iii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	08/07/2008

Zones	Countryside Zone Building Of Local Interest

Policies	C6 Countryside Zone G13 Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest Policy HWD2 (since replaced by Policy HE4)

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The officer’s report outlining the case and the reasons for refusal is attached in full. The comments below, and the numbering, relate to the applicants letter requesting reconsideration. Applicant 1. The Windows to be replaced are in an extension built twenty years ago and are not in the main house so cannot be considered historic. Response (1) It is accepted that the windows in question are in the main within the extension to the property, but two of the dormer windows are in the original roof of this Registered building. The applicant is therefore incorrect in stating that these should not be considered as being in the main historic house. Applicant 2. The Historic Buildings Consultation Response clearly states that although the rear section of Homestead has been included, it has clearly been changed heavily or constructed more recently; their response is “no comment” and refusal reason N/A. Homestead was listed as a BLI after the previous owners constructed the extension at the rear and since we purchased it; we have not received any correspondence advising us that Homestead was being considered or had been included as a BLI. Response (2) The property was first Registered as a Building of Local Interest in 1992 and a review of this was carried out in 2000. The extension to the rear was noted at that time but the property still considered worthy of being registered. It is therefore appropriate to apply Policy G13 and those policies relating to historic windows and doors to all of the building. Applicant 3. The Windows to be replaced cannot be seen when viewing the front of the house. Response (3) Agreed, the windows in question can not be seen when viewing the front of the house. Applicant 4. The windows are not in prominent view from the roadway and can only be seen if invited into the rear of my property. Response (4) Not agreed. The property is located on the road edge at a junction. 3 of the windows in question face the road, being within a few meters of it and are clearly visible. A further two windows face north and are clearly visible to anyone travelling south on La Rue de la Parade (see photos attached) It is not fact that these windows can only be seen from within the site. Applicant 5. The existing hardwood windows, although have been regularly maintained, are now beyond economical repair. The proposed new windows are of identical design. Response (5) Issue is not taken with the style of the window design but with the material for the frames, namely upvc, which is not appropriate for a Registered building. If the existing timber window frames cannot be repaired they should be replaced with new timber frames in order to accord with the relevant policies of the Island plan.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above.