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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 17 February 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2014-0011			Application Number: P/2013/0734 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	12-18 Hilgrove Street, 8-12 Halkett Street, , St. Helier		Date of Decision Summary:		13 February 2014
Decision Summary Author:	Principal 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:		n/a
Written Report Title :	P/2013/0734		Date of Written Report:
Written Report Author:	John Nicholson		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , 12-18 Hilgrove Street, 8-12 Halkett Street, , St. Helier, Jersey, JE2 4WJ Demolish facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street. Construct new three storey retail unit and 1 No. 1 bedroom flat.
Decision(s): At the public Ministerial Meeting of 18 December 2013 the Minister heard the above planning application and resolved to approve the application (subject to a Planning Obligation Agreement) contrary to the recommendation of the Department. As such, the Reasons for Approval and the conditions (and reasons) to be included on the decision notice have now been drafted, and are confirmed by the Minister as: Prior to the commencement of development full details (including samples) of the external materials (including timber windows, canopies, mouldings, lanterns, rainwater goods, roof, elevations and any further aspects of the shopfronts) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented in full prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity. In the interests of delivering a high quality design in accordance with Policies SP7 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Prior to the commencement of any work on site the applicant shall submit details of all proposed plant and equipment proposed to service the development, including the proposed locations. Any externally audible equipment e.g. condenser units or other plant must comply with NR35 night time and NR45 daytime measured 1 metre from the façade of any habitable accommodation. To protect the existing and proposed residential amenity in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. The flat as indicated on the second floor shall only be accommodation for a full time manager or other full time member of staff employed in the retail unit hereby approved. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of residential amenity to ensure compliance with Policy H9 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. All servicing of the retail unit hereby approved shall only be between 6am - 10am daily. In the interests of the amenity of the area and to ensure adequate service infrastructure in accordance with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Prior to the commencement of development, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to provide a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be thereafter implemented and maintained until completion of the development. The Construction Environmental Management Plan shall include: A. A demonstration of compliance with best practice in relation to noise and vibration control, and control of dust and emissions; B. Details of a publicised complaints procedure, including office hours and out-of-hours contact numbers; C. Specified hours of working. In the interests of protecting the amenities of the area generally and to accord with of Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Prior to the commencement of development, full Building Recording of the structure to be removed shall be undertaken, to a Brief to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to include for the up-dating of the Standing Building Survey / Report as submitted in relation to P/2006/2367 to include final images and the building facades. To accord with Policy HE1 and HE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Prior to the commencement of development, an archaeological assessment of the whole site shall be undertaken, to a Brief to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. To accord with Policy HE1 and HE5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.
Reason(s) for Decision: Permission has been granted having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other material considerations, including the consultations and representations received. It is considered that the grant of permission as a suitable exception to Policies GD1, SP4 and HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 is justified in this instance having regard to all the circumstances of the case. In particular the comprehensive nature of the application in the context of a complex planning history whereby significant elements of the heritage assets have already been lost, and the exceptionally high quality design of the replacement in the context of the established street scene.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

12 - 18 Hilgrove Street, 8 - 12 Halkett Street, St. Helier: Planning Application (P/2013/0734): 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

Department of the Environment

Up-date Report for Ministerial Meeting

1. Ap Number

P/2013/0734

2. Site Address	12-18 Hilgrove Street, 8-12 Halkett Street, St. Helier, JE2 4WJ.

3. Applicant	Mr J Manley Trump Holdings Ltd

4. Description	Demolish facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street. Construct new three storey retail unit and 1 No. 1 bedroom flat.

Summary	This application was presented to the Minister at his meeting of 6th September 2013, and the Department Report as presented to that meeting is attached for completeness (dated 29 August 2013). At the September meeting the Minister deferred his decision to enable the applicant to conclude their discussions with the Parish in relation to a package of townscape benefits. The applicant has now confirmed that they will undertake in liaison and cooperation with the Parish of St Helier, and following designs to be approved by them, the replacement of up to 15 “Centre Ville” signs in the centre of the Town of St Helier (email of 8 November 2013 included with this Report). Since the September meeting the applicant has also submitted a broader Statement (included with this Report), via their Advocate which makes further points in favour of the proposal. This includes a Structural Assessment of the facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street by Hartigans Engineers (27 September 2013) and a cost estimate for remedial works. The submission also includes photographs of the street from the 1960’s which were presented to the Minister at the September meeting. The crux of the case presented in the submissions from the applicant are: The facades are of little historic value; The facade retention will involve a virtual-rebuild at considerable cost; Real gains will result from the delivery of the retail site, both in terms of economic regeneration and streetscape. This further information adds to the applicant’s case, and, as was set out in the Department Report for the September meeting, we must reconsider whether the prospective ‘costs’ are acceptable to secure the potential ‘benefits’. The original Department Report considered that the case was not made, by reference to the lack of justification for the loss of the historic facades and the detrimental impact on the character and grain of the area. The assessment of the new material is reviewed below: ENGINEERS REPORT The new material adds to the applicant’s case but it focuses considerably on the financial issues associated with the costs of the works. The Hartigans report raises numerous practical issues, identifies significant risks with retaining the facades – they conclude the facades evidently can be retained, but the process is beyond normal techniques, and more expensive. This is the same advice given to the same applicant, by the same engineers just a few years ago, in the earlier application P/2006/2367 which included the retention of the facades. It is difficult to reconcile how the position has changed in the short intervening time, when the applicants own earlier proposal clearly thought was technically and financially feasible to retain the facades. When reviewed in the context of the core Island Plan policies supporting the protection of our historic environment, the additional financial costs and technical difficulty of retaining the facades is considered only of modest weight in the decision making process, and is not sufficient to over-ride the clear and strong policy position. OLD PHOTOGRAPHS Reverting back to the previously-suggested reasons for refusal, aside from the principle of losing the last elements of the historic buildings, there was also the matter of the form of their replacement. As a single form building across several historic plots this was not considered to respect the grain of the area. The applicant has now submitted photographs from the 1960’s which show the previous grain and character of the area. Whilst some of the proposed features (particularly the prominent canopies) are replicated in the proposal, the two subject properties at 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street are quite clearly individual structures, which represent the traditional historic grain and add variety to the form of the area. This is lost in the subject proposal, and it is the view of the Department that this loss is detrimental to the character of the streetscene. PLANNING OBLIGATION The applicant has also sought to provide an element of justification for the loss facades by working with the Parish of St Helier to provide 15 new “Centre Ville” directional signs. This offer doesn’t form a central part of the applicant’s case. However, it does represent a wider benefit which might be secured by the application, and could (perhaps in some part) off-set the loss of the historic assets. It is very rare that a betterment offer can be central to a planning application, particularly when loss of the historic environment is involved. In the relatively recent past the Southampton Hotel redevelopment (which involved the complete loss of a historic building) included significant public realm works to be funded by the developer and undertaken in conjunction with TTS. Whilst this was clearly a positive aspect of the application it wasn’t the only matter which tipped the conclusion. The same is true here: the offer is beneficial, it is related to the vitality and viability of the town centre, but it is not – in itself – considered enough to outweigh the stated concerns in relation to impact on the historical environment and general character of the area. CONCLUSION The applicant has produced a rounded package which makes a case in favour of the development, focusing on the technical difficulties and expense of retaining facades which are considered to be of little historic value. If approved, their proposal would be a significant asset in the town centre, enhancing its wider environment – this is further emphasised by the offer of off-site works in conjunction with the Parish. The Department wish to emphasise that a great deal of pragmatism has already been shown in the planning history, and a significant permission already exists on the site, facilitated by the Department accepting the need for an economically viable retail floorplate on this key town centre site, balanced with the retention of the facades and the maintenance of the historic grain of the town. The current application is almost-overwhelmingly focused on the costs to the applicant in delivering the scheme which they had previously presented as an agreeable solution. They have now returned with an application which, incrementally but fundamentally, takes the site to a position which has been resisted for 13 years. This history emphasises the importance of Island Plan policies in relation to the protection of the historic environment and the unique character of St Helier town centre. The policy ‘bar’ is set high, and even with the new submissions from the applicant, it remains the view of the Department that the application cannot be supported.
Department Recommendation	REFUSE

16. Conditions

1. The application has failed to justify the loss of the remaining heritage assets, namely the facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street, which are both potential Listed Buildings, and as such the proposals are contrary to Policies GD1 and HE1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

2. By reference to the loss of the facades of 12 and 14 Hilgrove Street the application is considered to be detrimental to the character of the area, in that the proposal fails to respect the grain of the original built form and the streetscene, and as such the proposals are contrary to Policies GD1 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

18. Background

Papers

Department Report dated 29 August 2013

Further representations from applicant