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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (03.05.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Fauvic Barn, Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville.

Subject:	Fauvic Barn, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville. Convert barn to form 2 bed unit with parking & garden. AMENDED PLANS: Demolish barn & construct 2 bed unit with parking & amenity space.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0143	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/2004/1467
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		S. Marsh RIBA
Decision(s Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: In making this decision the Minister recognises that the site lies within the built Up Area and if a suitable use is not found for the building then it will fall into disrepair. With this in mind he is prepared to invite a new application for the conversion of the building, for which he is supportive, subject to details and design. Given the highway consideration created by the very poor access you should be aware that if an approval is forthcoming, the site will be permanently restricted to a single parking space. Any such application will have to go before the Planning Applications Panel.
Action required: Applicant to submit new application
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 3rd May 2006

Fauvic Barn - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2004/1467

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Fauvic Barn, Bel Air, Outbuilding, La Grande Route des Sablons, Grouville.

Requested by	Mr. K Moore	Agent

Description	Convert barn to form 2 bed unit with parking & garden. AMENDED PLANS: Demolish barn & construct 2 bed unit with parking & amenity space. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed development would result in the unacceptable demolition of a building included on the Environment and Public Services Committee's 'Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historical Importance in Jersey' as a BLI, contrary to policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 and Interim Policy HB6. 2. The design of the replacement structure is considered inappropriate by virtue of its design and use of materials and as such is contrary to policies G2 and G3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. INFORMATIVE: It is brought to the applicants attention that the drawing 2005/02 (G) as submitted, contains inconstancies relating to the position of the site boundary from the rear wall of the site, and the position and orientation of the adjacent property L'Ecurie, when compared to the location plan (E) and the 2003 aerial photograph.

Determined by	Committee Refused

Date	07/11/2005

Zones	Built Up Area.Shoreline Zone. Building of Local Interest

Policies	H8, BE11, G13

Recommendation

Refuse Demolition

Comments on Case	Initially this scheme came in as a conversion to form a 2 bedroom unit with garden and parking. This scheme was not recommended as the consultation response from PSD Highways was very negative. The vehicle exit onto La Grande Route des Sablons is completely blind and there are three existing properties served by the access. Highways were not prepared to support any additional traffic through this access point, as it was considered a danger to highways safety. The case officer explained this to the applicant who then submitted a scheme for the demolition of the barn and the construction of a two bedroom unit on the site to facilitate highways improvements. At this point the case officer did not realise that the building was included on the Register of Buildings of Historic Interest (as part of the adjacent Bel Air) and advised the applicant that a scheme for the rebuilding of the barn would be acceptable subject to highways and other policy constraints. Prior to a decision being made the registration was discovered and clarified. The then Environment and Public Services Committee made a decision that, given the advice to date and the potential highways improvements which would be of wider benefit, they would support the principle of the demolition of the barn. However, before being issued this decision was withdrawn as evidence came to light that the building may have had significant historical merit for its (alleged) use in the Occupation to hide escapees from the Island. In addition the site was not of the dimensions shown on the applicants drawings. A formal refusal was issued. This request by the applicant is to have that decision overturned. On the instruction of the President of the former Environment and Public Services Committee the Jersey Heritage Trust have investigated the use of this building during the Occupation by contacting those who have living memory of the use of the site. These investigations have proved inconclusive. There were at one point two other outbuildings on the site, but these were demolished and redeveloped into dwellings prior to the publication of the Register. It is feasible that these were the buildings that were used in the Occupation and they have already been lost. Equally it is possible that the remaining building was used. Included in this report are the previous Committee reports and minutes. Some correspondence is included, specifically with regard to establishing whether the barn was used for hiding escapees, but the file is copious and it is respectfully suggested that the Minister familiarise himself with the file due to the political involvement in this case. It is difficult to know where to take this case from here. The previous Committee felt that on balance the loss of the building could be conceded as it offered an improvement on highways grounds and made use of a site located within the Built Up Area. This has to be balanced against the loss of a Registered building which is contrary to Policy G13 of The Jersey Island Plan. The conversion of this building to habitable would be the most reasonable solution, but there is no support from T&TS Highways for this as it increases the amount of traffic through a very hazardous exit onto the highway. If a dispensation of the highways recommendation is to be considered then legal advice from the Solicitor General should be sought, as it may raise the question of liability, should in the future an accident occur in this location and it involve the occupants of any dwelling allowed as the result of this application. Finally, the Minister should be aware that property search for this building is dated 16th July 2004 and the application was submitted on 14th July 2004. At the time of the submission of the application it was unlikely Mr Moore was the owner of the barn as it would be normal to have the property search back before the transfer of ownership went to court. According to Mr Moore’s Advocate the transfer of the property did not take place until 29th October 2004. If this is the case then the Owners declaration on the rear of the form is incorrect. The case officer remains unaware of any pre-application advice given to the applicant with regard to the use of this building as a dwelling. The revised proposal to demolish the barn did not come in until May 2005 when Mr Moore had owned the barn for several months.

Recommendation	Refuse demolition

Reasons	As before.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter to the applicant dated 29th March 2006. Letter from JHT dated 27th March 2006. Email to case officer dated 6th March 2006. Letter from JHT dated 22nd February 2006. Letter from JHT dated 31st January 2006. Letter to Director from applicant dated 4th December 2005. E-mail from JHT to Design and Conservation dated 29th November 2005. Letter from CIOS to JHT dated 12th November 2005. Copy of refusal notice dated 7th November 2005. E&PSC Minutes dated 27th October 2005. Officer Committee Report dated 17th October 2005. E&PSC Minutes dated 7th July 2005. E&PSC Minutes dated 15th June 2005. Copy of JHAP report dated 13th June 2005. Copy of letter from applicants advocate dated 1st July 2005. Officer Committee Report dated 23rd June 2005. Property Search dated 16th July 2004. Consultation response from PSD Highways dated 9th August 2004 and 3rd June 2005.

Prepared by		Date

Endorsed by		Date