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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (07.02.06) to grant planning permission to Ainland, Georgetown Park Estate, St. Saviour.

Subject:	Ainland, Georgetown Park Estate, St. Saviour Construct dwelling in garden with various alterations to Ainland. Request for reconsideration of refusal of planning permission.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0139	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	WRITTEN & ORAL	Person Giving Report (if oral):		M.JONES
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2005/1559
Written Report Title:	Construct dwelling in garden with various alterations to Ainland. Request for reconsideration of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		M. JONES
Decision(s) – Grant Planning Permission – The Department does not object to the principle of development for this site provided the reasons for Refusal are addressed for any future proposals. 10.04.06 - Amended drawings submitted which meet the criteria set by the Minister (see letter by officer dated 22.3.06) Planning Approval to be issued in accordance with Planning Approved Drawing P/2005/1559 ‘C’ - 13.4.06
Reason(s) for decision: The Department does not object to the principle of development for this site provided the reasons for Refusal are addressed for any future proposals. 10.04.06 - Amended drawings submitted which meet the criteria set by the Minister (see letter by officer dated 22.3.06) Planning Approval to be issued in accordance with Planning Approved Drawing P/2005/1559 ‘C’ - 13.4.06
Action required: Advise applicant.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 07.02.06

Ainland, Georgetown Park Estate - grant of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1559

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Ainland, Georgetown Park Estate, St. Clement.

Requested by	Mr. M JNeville	Agent	Mr M Dun

Description	Construct dwelling in garden with various alterations to Ainland. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development provides insufficient car parking, contrary to the guidelines of the Environment and Public Services Committee's Planning Policy Notes No.3 and is therefore contrary to Policy G2 (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed development fails to comply with Policy G3 (i) and H8 (viii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002, as it will have a detrimental impact by virtue of its size, massing and siting in relation to 'Ainland' located to the west and 'Li-Vana' located to the east of the site. 3. It is considered that the natural physical constraints of the site have produced an incoherent and poor quality design which is considered contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	07/11/2005

Zones	Built Up Area

Policies	G2 (iii), G3 (i), H8 (viii)

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	Pre-Application Advice offered the following advice regarding the proposal to develop the south-eastern corner of the garden at the property known as ‘Ainland’.  In accordance with The Minister for Planning Environment’s car parking standards that four car parking spaces would be needed for the development.  The height of the proposed building at 30ft (10 metres) seemed excessively high. It was recommended that the new structure respect the height of immediate dwellings surrounding the site and be kept to a minimum.  Should a two storey building be acceptable the officer recommended that the roof be hipped to minimise the impact upon immediate neighbours.  Concerns were raised by the Officer regarding the relationship of the proposed dwelling with the neighbouring property to the east known as ‘Livana’ as the proposals could potentially be harmful at such close proximity creating overlooking from proposed bedroom 2.  Officer included sketch suggesting where on site he considered a building higher than a single storey might be acceptable. “This may prove to be either single-storey with accommodation in the roof or two-storey with roof, dependent upon the assessment of the issues raised”. Pre-Application Advice - 17 February 2005, relates to the proposed demolition of ‘Ainland’ details of which can be obtained in attached copy letter. Pre-Application Advice - 1 March 2005 offered the following advice regarding the proposal to develop the south-eastern corner of the garden at the property known as ‘Ainland’.  Highlighted an uncertainty as to whether or not the proposed new dwelling would be higher than the neighbouring property to the east and asked for confirmation of this.  Concerns regarding the height of the building in relation to the neighbouring property could be mitigated by hipping each of the three gables.  It was recommended that the eastern window to bedroom 1 should be moved to the west elevation to prevent harm to neighbours to the east through overlooking.  Based on pre-application advice offered regarding the demolition of Ainland and the creation of additional dwellings 4 no. car parking spaces per dwelling would need to be provided. Pre-Application Advice - 15 March 2005, offered further and more detailed advice regarding a hipped roof design for the scheme. (Please refer to letter dated 15th March 2005). Comments Representations were received from the residents of ‘Livana’ located to the East of ‘Ainland’. Their letters outlined concerns regarding the overpowering impact the development would create coupled with the incoherent and poor quality design the building would have within the surrounding context. The loss of privacy through direct overlooking was also of concern to the occupiers of ‘Livana’. The issues raised reinforced the concerns highlighted in Pre-Application advice. Conclusion Notwithstanding the comments of the agent’s request for reconsideration of 20th December 2005, it was apparent from the detailed planning application submitted for ‘Ainland’ that the issues raised in pre-application advice had been insufficiently addressed. Although elements of the design had been moulded to accommodate pre-application advice the issues of overall height, massing, overlooking and car parking had failed to demonstrate that the scheme, as proposed, would be successful in this location. Furthermore, the finished design demonstrated a scheme which struggled to fit into the physical constraints of the site and surrounding properties. A much reduced scheme in both height and mass with a greater design sensitivity may succeed on this site. It is recommended that the decision to refuse this scheme is upheld by The Minister for Planning and Environment as it is contrary to Policy G2 (iii), G3 (i) & H8 (viii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	Please see above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Request for Reconsideration letter from Agent - 20.12.05 Letters of Representation - 22.09.05 & 17.01.06 Pre-Application Advice Letters - 23.12.04/17.02.05/01.03.05/15.03.05 Comments from Public Services Department - 7.09.05

Prepared by		Date

Endorsed by		Date