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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (28.06.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Field 1091, Rue de Servais, St. John.

Subject:	Field 1091, Rue de Servais, St John.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0150	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/2042
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission.	Written report – Author:		S. Marsh RIBA
Decision(s Maintain refusal of planning permission.
Reason(s) for decision: For original reasons outlined in supporting written report
Action required: Inform applicant (SM wrote agent 1/9/2006)
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 28.06.06

Field 1091, Rue de Servais,St. John - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/2042

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Field 1091, La Rue des Servais, St. John, JE3 4FQ.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. P Pallot	Agent	RIVA ARCHITECTS

Description	Construct 2 No. 4 bedroom units with associated landscaping. Erect garage to main house. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass and siting is considered inappropriate to the context of the site, which despite being included within the Built Up Area boundary is distinctly rural in character. The resultant effect will be to unreasonably affect the character of the area by the significant loss of the trees within the site, to unreasonably affect the local environment by visual intrusion contrary to Policy G2 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass, design and siting is considered to be over development of the site because of the depth of the plan form, the proximity to the site boundary and resultant loss of trees and its relationship with the existing buildings by nature of its elevation and proximity contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass and siting is considered to be detrimental to the setting of a registered building contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 4. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on the adjacent dwelling Pine Cottage by virtue of overlooking and loss of privacy contrary to Policy H8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	07/02/2006

Zones	Water Pollution Safeguard Area, Built-Up Area, Countryside Zone

Policies	G2, G3, H8,

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The Agent in his letter of 4th April addresses the reasons for refusal. This letter and its appendices are included for the Ministers information. The Agent states that the proposal is based on local building forms and whilst this is broadly true, this is in an exaggerated form. The proposal shows buildings that are both wider and taller than would be found traditionally and the size of the dwellings is further exaggerated by the elevated position on the site. Whilst the overall form is traditional the architectural features that are incorporated such as wide and hipped dormers are not and detract from the architectural character. In addition the proportion of roof to the walled mass below is to deep and only serves to make the buildings appear over-tall. For the reasons stated on the decision notice and clarified in the Departments letter of 2nd February 2006 the Case Officer maintains that the design of these buildings is inappropriate for this site which is rural in character and that the buildings dominate those immediately adjacent to the north. The Officer maintains that Pine Cottage will suffer a loss of privacy. Whilst it is proposed to provide a fence and screen planting along the northern boundary of Plot 1, this planting will take some time to establish. The boundary treatment will prevent overlooking into the ground floor accommodation of Pine Cottage but the Officer remains unconvinced that views to the first floor accommodation will be adequately restricted. If the dwellings proposed were more modest in scale they could be located further south in the site and resolve this issue. See drawn section BB -09.477.05 The Agent argues that the trees and planting that are to be lost are of little environmental value. This may be the case but it does not mean that they do not contribute to the character of the area and its rural feeling . A less heavily developed site could retain or replace this planting offering the applicant the development they seek from the site whilst maintaining the rural character. The eastern side of Rue des Servais at this point is more rural in character than the west. It is at this point where the Built-Up Area is adjacent the Countryside Zone and it is important to maintain this character, even if inappropriate levels of development have been allowed in the past. Section AA demonstrates that the ridge line of the proposed dwelling (Unit 1) is concurrent with that of Windy Croft on the west side of Rue des Servais, but sections BB and CC demonstrate just how elevated the proposal is when compared to both Oak Tree Cottage and Pine Cottage which are contained within the plot concerned. Both of these sections, in the view of the Case Officer, only reinforce the inappropriate scale of the proposal. Extensive pre-application advice was offered for the development of this site and the Department feel that the advice offered has been ignored in the desire to increases the return from the site. The Department accepts that this site is within the Built Up Area and that the principal of development is acceptable, but it is considered and has been made clear to the applicant, that this should be at a more modest scale. The precedent of the recent approval to Canada Cottage to t he south is not directly relevant in this instance. Canada Cottage is a single and very modest property that sits in a substantial plot to the south. The extension that was approved, whilst large made clear distinction between the existing traditional form and the very modern new. It remains a single dwelling in a substantial plot. In summary if the applicant is prepared to reduce the scale of development on this site from substantial detached houses to more modest dwelling of a more vernacular form then there is no reason why development permission should not be forthcoming, but the Case Officer feels that this scheme remains over development of this site and respectfully requests that the Minister upholds the Departments decision.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass and siting is considered inappropriate to the context of the site, which despite being included within the Built Up Area boundary is distinctly rural in character. The resultant effect will be to unreasonably affect the character of the area by the significant loss of the trees within the site, to unreasonably affect the local environment by visual intrusion contrary to Policy G2 and H8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass, design and siting is considered to be over development of the site because of the depth of the plan form, the proximity to the site boundary and resultant loss of trees and its relationship with the existing buildings by nature of its elevation and proximity contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass and siting is considered to be detrimental to the setting of a registered building contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 4. The proposed development would result in an unacceptable impact on the adjacent dwelling Pine Cottage by virtue of overlooking and loss of privacy contrary to Policy H8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Departments’ letters of pre-application advice dated 27th April and 10th June 2006. Departments’ letter of advice issued with refusal notice dated 2nd February 2006. Letter of representation dated 6th June 2006. Agent case for request for reconsideration dated 4th April 2006 and appendices.

Endorsed by		Date