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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 planning permission for 40 David Place, St. Helier.

Subject:	40 David Place, St Helier Construct additional storey to roof of building.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0137	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/2005/1442
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Uphold the refusal of the planning application
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the policies of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan.
Action required: Notify agent of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 13.04.06

40 David Place, St. Helier - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1442

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	40, David Place, St. Helier.

Requested by	Mr. KYu	Agent	PAR Architectural Services Limited

Description	Construct additional storey to roof of building. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. The proposed development would result in changes harmful to the fabric and character of this 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 Building of Local Interest, contrary to Interim Policy HB6, 1998 and Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The proposed development by virtue of its design and detailing is harmful to the character of the existing building that is included on the Environment and Public Services' "Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Importance in Jersey" as a Building of Local Interest, contrary to Policy G13 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 3. The proposed development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, resulting in a building which provides insufficient car parking provision and amenity space for potential occupiers, contrary to Policy H8 and G2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	18/11/2005

Zones	Town Proposals Map Built-Up Area Island Rte Network: Secondary Building Of Local Interest

Policies	G2 General Development Considerations Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development: (v) incorporates satisfactory provision of amenity and public open space where appropriate; vii) provides a satisfactory means of access, manoeuvring space within the site and adequate space for parking; G13 – Buildings and Places of Architectural and Historic Interest There will be a presumption in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character and integrity of registered buildings and places. Permission will not normally be granted for the: (i) total or partial demolition of a registered building; (ii) extension or other external alteration works which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest, character or setting of a registered building or place; (iii) addition of external items, including satellite dishes, antennae, signs, solar panels, rooflights and PVCu or aluminium doors or windows, which would adversely affect the special interest or character of the building; H8 - Housing Development within the Built-Up Area Proposals for new dwellings, extensions or alterations to existing dwellings or changes of use to residential, will normally be permitted within the boundary of the built-up area provided that the proposal: (i) is in accordance with the required standards for housing as set by the Planning and Environment Committee; v) will not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, safety or parking;

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Registration of the Building The agent contends that the owner was not aware that the building is included on the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Importance in Jersey and that the building is not worthy of inclusion. The property has been included on the Register since 1992 and this was conveyed to the owner on in 2005. A letter from the President of the Environment and Public Services Committee dated 4th April 2005 to Mr Sui Kit is included as a background paper. The decision was therefore relayed to the applicant 4 months prior to the application being submitted. It is not considered unreasonable in this instance to use policies relating to the Register as part of the determination of the application. 40 David Place It is considered that the building is worthy of inclusion on the Register as a Building of Local Interest. A BLI is a property which retains its historic form and external detail and so makes a positive contribution to the architectural and historic character of the locality and thereby enhances the special identity of the Island. A building might, as in the case of 40 David Place, have architectural interest through a distinctive architectural style and group value. It is regrettable that the published Register does not include specific details of all the properties however, the importance of this particular building and its contribution to the street are clear. Reasons for refusal The building retains the majority of its original features, uses traditional materials and maintains its original form (including its height) when viewed from David Place. This is considered to be sufficient to warrant its inclusion of the Register in addition to its positive contribution to the historic streetscape of the area. The agent seems to infer that other buildings in the terrace are not on the Register. This is incorrect as Nos. 32-50 are included as BLIs. Given the building’s inclusion on the Register for the reasons above it is relevant to use Policy HB6 and Policy G13 during the determination of the application. The Historic Buildings Officer has confirmed that the roof is original and therefore to remove it is considered to be harmful to the fabric of the building. As previously stated, the form of the building is part of its character and therefore to raise the roof is considered to be harmful. It should be noted that the refusal was not on the basis of the raising of the roof harming the streetscape as this would not be the case. The proposed bay window and the eaves line windows/rooflights on the rear façade do not have a sympathetic relationship with the existing pattern of fenestration or with the detailing of the building. Therefore, it is considered that the changes harm the character of the building. Even if the building were not included on the Register it is likely that these features would be unacceptable in design terms. The overdevelopment of the site is not an issue of mass and scale but of car parking and amenity space. The proposed development increases the number of bedrooms on the site from 7 to 9 and therefore the potential occupancy. The increased number of occupants would have no access to on-site carparking and will have to share only a limited amount of amenity space (approx. 46m2). The proposal only exacerbates the shortfall in amenity space provision and it is considered that historical intensity of uses in neighbouring properties do not set precedents for the under-provision of amenity space in the light of the current standards given that there are no particular circumstances to make an exception to Policy H8 and G2. Whilst the issue of car parking is the least important reason for refusal the same principle of overdevelopment exists as with the amenity space provision. The increase in occupancy would, in accordance with the standards, require an increase in the number of spaces by 2.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 17/01/06 Consultation response dated 27/10/05 Consultation response dated 05/09/05 Consultation response dated 24/08/05 Letter from the President of the Environment and Public Services Committee dated 4th April 2005 Letter of representation dated 08/02/06

Endorsed by

Date