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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (13.04.06) to maintain refusal of a retrospective application for Southfork, Rue du Trot, St. Martin.

Subject:	Southfork, La Rue du Trot, St Martin
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0182	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/2005/1554
Written Report Title:	Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission.	Written report – Author:		Lawrence Davies
Decision(s Maintain refusal of retrospective application
Reason(s) for decision: The site lies within the designated Countryside Zone, wherein there is a presumption against development. The creation of this separate use and the storage of materials in the open air is considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and unacceptable in an area specifically designated to prevent unnecessary development. The use of the site therefore fails to meet the requirements of policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Action required: Applicant to be advised of the decision and reminded that the enforcement notice requiring this area to be cleared will be reactivated.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 13.04.06

Southfork, Rue du Trot, St. Martin - maintain refusal of retrospective application

Application Number: P/2005/1554

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Southfork, La Rue du Trot, St. Martin.

Requested by	Mr. T JBinet	Agent

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Temporary change of use for storage of building materials. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of retrospective planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The site lies within the designated Countryside Zone, wherein there is a presumption against development. The creation of this separate use and the storage of materials in the open air, is considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and unacceptable in an area specifically designated to prevent unnecessary development. The use of the site therefore fails to meet the requirements of policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded that notice has already been served requiring all building materials commercially stored to be removed from the site by 16 December 2005.

Determined by	Sub-Committee Refusal

Date	05/12/2005

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	G2 General Development Considerations C6 Countryside Zone

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	As stated within the original officer report, the site in question lies within the Countryside Zone where there exists a presumption against any new development unless it can be demonstrated to be essential to the needs of agriculture. Clearly, this is not the case in this instance as the proposed use of the land is for the storage of materials for a builders’ merchant. The following is summarised from the applicant’s letter which outlines the reasons why, in his view, this use should be permitted; · This activity has gone un-noticed for several years and causes no visual, material or operational inconvenience to anyone (eg the site is screened and traffic is light). · This is only a temporary arrangement until the construction of a shed commences on the site (intended for some time later this year). · Permitting the current arrangement would generally be in line with this department’s support for agricultural diversification. · The applicant feels unjustly treated by the department in respect of a previous application concerning a change-of-use for his dairy complex; he feels that permission given here would redress the balance to a certain degree. In response I would argue the following; That this activity has been ongoing for some time is immaterial – this is clearly a use which contravenes Policy C6. Also, the storage of building materials is not an accepted means of agricultural diversification. Storing building materials on a site is permissible under the Exempt Operations Regulations but only where this is directly related to an ongoing construction operation on an adjacent site; clearly the use here (by the applicant’s own admission) has been ongoing for several years and is therefore not directly related to any specific building project. My feeling is that by condoning this (already-established?) use would be to make it easier in the future for it to remain in a state of semi-permanence. The comments made in respect of the dairy application are not of relevance to this application.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal and re-enact enforcement proceedings

Reasons	As previously The site lies within the designated Countryside Zone, wherein there is a presumption against development. The creation of this separate use and the storage of materials in the open air, is considered detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and unacceptable in an area specifically designated to prevent unnecessary development. The use of the site therefore fails to meet the requirements of policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. INFORMATIVE: The applicant is reminded that notice has already been served requiring all building materials commercially stored to be removed from the site by 16 December 2005.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Applicant’s RFR letter

Endorsed by		Date