Cliffside House and Field 1434, Rue du Catel, Trinity: Planning Application considered by 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 8 April 2011:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2011-0034
Decision Summary Title	Planning Applications Panel – decisions considered by Minister		Date of Decision Summary:	8th April 2011.
Decision Summary Author:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written & Oral		Person Giving Oral Report:	Chief Officer Department of the Environment
Written Report Title	P/2010/1489 Report to Planning Applications Panel Cliffside House		Date of Written Report:	11th February 2011
Written Report Author:	Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: P/2010/1489. Cliffside House & Field 1434, La Rue du Catel, Trinity. Construct ground & first floor extensions. Demolish conservatory. Re-roof. Various external alterations including fenestrations. Construct stables in Field 1434. (Model Available). REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSON.
Decision(s): The Minister resolved to MAINTAIN REFUSAL, for the reasons set out in the report, P/2010/1489 Report to Planning Applications Panel dated, 11th February 2011. In considering the reasons for refusal on the Department Report the Minister did not feel the stables should form part of the refusal, therefore the application was refused in accordance with the recommendation set out in the Department Report dated 11th February 2011.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister for Planning and Environment became aware that Planning Applications Panel (PAP) may not have been fully constituted for consideration of the above application and resolved to reconsider the application. The Minister considered all the information presented to the Planning Applications Panel. Permission has been refused. The Decision to refuse the application has been upheld having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other materials considerations, including the consultations and representations received.
Resource Implications: There are no resource implications.
Action required: Issue notifications of the decision as appropriate.
Signature: Senator FE Cohen		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision

Cliffside House, Rue du Catel, Trinity: Planning Application considered by Minister

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2010/1489

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Cliffside House & Field 1434, La Rue du Catel, Trinity.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. PLindsey	Agent	Dyson & Buesnel Architects

Description	Construct ground & first floor extensions. Demolish conservatory. Re-roof. Various external alterations including fenestrations. Construct stables in Field 1434. (Model Available). REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSON.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The site is located within the Green Zone where there is a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. The proposals are of excessive scale size and scale which together with its siting and design would result in a development that would be prominent and visually harmful to the sensitive character of the area. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy G2 and to Policy C5 of the Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its design will result in a development which has a complicated and awkward arrangement of roof forms that would be obtrusive and harmful to the character of the surrounding area which therefore fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy G3 of the Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Department

Date	22/12/2010

Zones	Green Zone, Archaelogical Site

Policies	G2, General Development Considerations G3, Quality of Design G12, Archaeological Resources C5 Green Zone, C2, Countryside Character – E3 North East, St Martin C10, Walls, Fosses, Banques and Hedgerows

Recommendation

Maintain Reasons for Refusal.

The proposal is for a large extension to the existing house and riding stables within the Green Zone. The property has had several previous extensions which is clearly apparent and given rise to an unusual and complex arrangement of roofs.

The development will increase the mass of the property by approximately 50% and are considered excessive and of such scale that given the prominence of the building would be harmful to the sensitive character of the area and therefore contrary to the Policy C5 of the Island Plan.

The proposals fail to rationalise the existing building adding further to the complexity of the existing roof structure with three separate roof pitches above the first floor and a further two above the ground floor.

Comments on Case	The application is for the construction of ground & first floor extensions, demolish the conservatory and roof alterations. The application includes various external alterations including fenestrations and to construct stables in Field 1434. The development proposals will significantly increase the mass and scale of the existing property development. The proposals will increase both the ground floor building footprint and more than double the first floor area. In total the development will increase the building (above ground) by almost 50% with the ground floor increasing by approximately 20% and the first floor by 125%. In addition to the significant increase in roofing mass resulting from the proposed extension, the existing hip roof will be replaced by a gable roof which will add further to the mass of the existing roof. For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development is of an excessive scale that would detract from and unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the area. The stables are a long way from the existing house towards the centre of Field 1434. The stable block is itself relatively largely will contain 4 loose boxes with additional ancillary rooms and will measure approximately 14.5 metres by 8.5 metres. The stable block will measure 4 metres high, and will sit on top of a 1m high fill and will also include an area of hardstanding. The scheme was presented to the Department Architect who commented that “whilst the principle of extending the property and rationalising the features is welcomed the current proposals fall short of the Departments design guidance. Given the scale of the proposed extension and amount of refurbishment, the proposal should be seen as a new house. The proposals are however neither a fine example of traditional Jersey vernacular or exceptional contemporary design.” “Whilst the design seeks to rationalise the existing building the result is an overcomplicated composition where every element is celebrated, with complicated forms, six different and competing roof forms, multiple window types and many set backs and overhangs and no clear architectural language.” Works which include the widening of the existing vehicle access off La Rue du Catel and the provision of an enlarged, gated car parking area to the west of the main house were previously approved. Please see the original officer’s report attached for further consideration of the scheme.

Recommendation	Refusal

Reasons	Maintain Reasons for Refusal

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Agents Request for Reconsideration Consultaion Response from: Environmental Protection Natural Environment Land Controls Department Architect

Endorsed by		Date