Field 498 and Champ Donne Store, Rue Bechervaise, St. Peter

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26.10.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Field 498 and Champ Donne Store, Rue Bechervaise, St. Peter.

Subject:	Field 498 And Champ Donne Store, La Rue Bechervaise, St. Peter Construct 4 bedroom dwelling. AMENDED PLANS: Dwelling reduced in size and pulled back from east boundary.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0092	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/2006/0128
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Sara Marsh RIBA
Decision(s Maintain refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The reason for this is that this proposal remains the replacement of a redundant commercial building with a residential dwelling, and as such the reduction in floor area required by Policy C6 must be met. The Minister is not prepared to make an exception to policy on the basis of additions to an adjacent property which were given under entirely different circumstances and policy restrictions.
Action required: Inform Agent
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 26.10.06

Field 498 and Champ Donne Store, Rue Bechervaise, St. Peter - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/0128

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Field 498 And, Champ Donne Store, La Rue Bechervaise, St. Peter.

Requested by	Mr and Mrs. P Walker	Agent	Dyson & Buesnel Architects

Description	Construct 4 bedroom dwelling. AMENDED PLANS: Dwelling reduced in size and pulled back from east boundary. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The scheme results in an over development of the site, by virtue of its increased footprint which is out of character with the pattern of development in this countryside area. This results in the scheme failing to satisfy the requirements of Policy G2, paras i, ii and v, and Policy G3, paras i and ii of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c) of policy C6 which calls for a substantial environmental gain and a significant contribution to the character of the area if allowing development in lieu of commercial uses in the countryside. The current proposal is taller, produces more floor area and would have a greater impact on the site than the pre-existing building.

Determined by	Planning Applications Panel Refusal

Date	22/08/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	Policy C6 Policy NR2

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The Case Officer report identifies the fact that the proposal is more architecturally accomplished than the previous scheme, but this does not negate the fact that the applicant is seeking a significant increase in floor area, over and above that of the commercial shed that previously existed on the site. The policy clearly states that the redevelopment of buildings in the Countryside Zone ‘will only be permissible where environmental improvement and restoration of the landscape character is secured. This might be the case where, for example, the scale and mass of a non-residential building is reduced through redevelopment, lessening its impact in the landscape’. The applicant’s point that consideration should have been given for a standing consent when the permit was given for the works to the adjacent property is a weak one. The applicant had in fact allowed his permit for this site to expire and it was only the fact that it had so recently expired that gave weight to the current application. By the time the consent was given for the works to the adjacent property in early November 2005, the applicants consent had only one month to run, despite the site having been cleared some time previously. There was nothing on the site for the Case Officer dealing with the adjacent property to assess and nothing to indicate that any works were due to start. Neither is it for this applicant to make a judgement as to validity of the approval given on the adjacent property. The fact remains that this proposal quite clearly fails to meet the requirements of Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan. The applicant is asking a policy exception to be made on the basis of the reasoning for an approval given on an adjacent site, rather than on factors material to this case. The approval on the neighbouring property does significantly increase the floor area of the house, but as an existing dwelling the criteria for that judgement are more relaxed. The extension does indeed come close to the southern boundary of the site, and does take some light from the site, but it is not in the view of the Case Officer significant enough in terms of loss of light, overbearing or loss of privacy to justify such an exception to policy fin this instance. Therefore the Officer recommends that the refusal is maintained for the reasons given previously.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	1. The scheme results in an overdevelopment of the site, by virtue of its increased footprint which is out of character with the pattern of development in this countryside area. This results in the scheme failing to satisfy the requirements of Policy G2, paras i, ii and v, and Policy G3, paras i and ii of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 2. The scheme fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (c) of Policy C6, which calls for a substantial environmental gain and a significant contribution to the character of the area, if allowing development in lieu of commercial uses in the countryside. The current proposal is taller, produces more floor area and would have a greater impact on the site than the pre-existing building.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Officer Panel Report Letter from applicant dated 28 August 2006

Endorsed by		Date	17 October 2006