Samuel Le Riche House, Plat Douet Road, St. Saviour: Planning Application (P/2016/0946): Appeal Decision

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 25 September 2017:

Decision Reference: MD- PE- 2017 – 0093
Decision Summary Title:	Appeal Decision – Samuel Le Riche House, Plat Douet Road, St Saviour. (P/2016/0946)		Date of Decision Summary:	18 September 2017
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner (Policy)		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title:	Inspector’s Report – Samuel Le Riche House		Date of Written Report:	15 September 2017 (received)
Written Report Author:	Jonathan King BA(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI. Planning Inspector		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a refusal to grant planning permission at Samuel Le Riche House, Plat Douet Road, St Saviour. (P/2016/0946)
Decision: The Minister dismissed the appeal and a variation of the decision has been made. The Minister refused to grant permission under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of the following development; “Demolish office building and construct 17 one-bedroom and 20 two-bedroom units with associated parking and landscaping” for the following reasons:- 1. By virtue of its overall scale and design the proposed development would result in an overly-large building (the tallest building within the immediate vicinity), distinctly urban in its appearance which would be harmful to the character of this part of St Saviour. Accordingly, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies SP 7, GD 1 and GD 7 of the adopted Island Plan 2011 (revised 2014). 2. The application seeks to develop the whole site at 5 storeys (albeit set in at the top level). It would bring a large amount of residential development onto a restricted site (which itself is compromised by the existing commercial right of way). The problems which result from this density of development include the scheme’s failure to provide an adequate level and / or quality of private amenity space provision for some of the units and lack of any alternative appropriate outdoor amenity space for residents to use. Accordingly, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the adopted Island Plan 2011 (revised 2014). 4. The proposed development would, by virtue of its extent of fenestration and number of balconies and by virtue of its mass and height in close proximity to existing residential properties and their private gardens, result in an increase in overlooking and an increase in over-shadowing of those properties and gardens. Whilst it is accepted that those properties are subject to a degree of overlooking / over-shadowing at present, it is considered that the moderate increase in impact will result in a cumulative impact that will unreasonably harm the amenities of nearby residents. Accordingly, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD 1 of the adopted Island Plan 2011 (revised 2014). 5. The applicants have failed to provide details relating to water capacity and conservation (Policy NR 2), an Air Quality Assessment (Policy NR 3), and Renewable Energy (Policy NR 7). These policies apply to all major new developments which propose 10 or more new dwellings. As such, the application fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies NR 2, NR 3 and NR 7 of the adopted Island Plan 2011 (revised 2014).
Reason for Decision: The Minister agreed with the recommendation of the Inspector as detailed within his report.
Resource Implications:- None
Action required: Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.
Signature: Deputy S Luce		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):