Pine Grove, Le Vieux Mont Cochon, St. Helier: Planning Application (P2016/1593): 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 29 November 2018:

Decision Reference: MD- PE- 2018 – 0075
Decision Summary Title:	Appeal Decision (Re-consideration) - Pine Grove, Le Vieux Mont Cochon, St Helier (P/2016/1593)		Date of Decision Summary:	20 November 2018
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 (Supplementary) – Pine Grove		Date of Written Report:	01 October 2018
Written Report Author:	P Staddon, BSc, Dip, MBA, MRTPI- Planning Inspector		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a decision to grant planning permission for the following development “Demolish dwelling and construct 1 no. five bed dwelling with associated parking and landscaping” at Pine Grove, Le Vieux Mont Cochon, St Helier JE2 3JQ (P/2016/1593).
Decision: The Minister allowed the appeal and refused to grant permission to develop land under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would result in the demolition of an existing, habitable dwelling and its replacement with a substantially larger dwelling. From the evidence submitted by, or on behalf of, the applicant, the Minister is not satisfied that the existing dwelling could not be reasonably repaired or refurbished to bring it to an acceptable standard of accommodation within an economic limit equal to, or less than, that likely to be required for the proposed replacement dwelling. The proposal, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD1, of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014) which states that development proposals will not be permitted unless [inter alia] they will not replace a building that is capable of being repaired or refurbished. 2. The Minister further considered that the additional land-take within the Green Backdrop Zone and the quantity of imported materials required by the proposed new dwelling and the quantum of construction waste likely to be generated by the demolition of the existing dwelling does not represent a sustainable form of development given that a substantial and habitable family home already exists on site. The proposal, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirements of Policy GD1, of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014).
Reason for Decision: The Royal Court remitted the appeal and the planning application to the Minister for reconsideration and determination against Policy GD1. Accordingly, the Minister limited his re-assessment of the appeal and the application to the requirements of Policy GD1. The Minister also gave full consideration to the Royal Court Judgement (1st June 2018: Therin vs Minister for Planning and Environment & Derek Warwick) and to the subsequent assessment and recommendation of the Inspector as detailed in his report. In reconsidering the appeal, the Minister considered that the removal of Policy GD2 from the 2011 Island Plan did not serve to render Policy GD1.1.(a) of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014) redundant and that the requirement of Policy GD1.1.(a) was, accordingly, a relevant consideration as it is a clear and unambiguous statement within the policy. The Minister considered the arguments put forward with regard to the economic viability of the repair or refurbishment of the existing dwelling compared with the stated costings of the proposed replacement dwelling. However, the Minister was not satisfied that the projected costings for the repair or refurbishment of the existing dwelling reflected the works required to upgrade the existing dwelling to provide a comfortable family home, as opposed to an upgrade to provide a higher quality of accommodation than that. The Minister was not, therefore, satisfied that the repair or refurbishment of the existing dwelling was not a viable option. The Minister also gave full consideration to the Inspector’s original and subsequent report but did not agree that the proposal the subject of the appeal would represent a more sustainable option to that of retaining and repairing or refurbishing the existing dwelling. The purported environmental benefits of the proposed replacement dwelling do not, in the Minister’s opinion, outweigh the presumption against the demolition of the existing dwelling to such an extent as would justify a departure from Policy GD1.1(a) of the Island Plan.
Resource Implications:- None
Action required: Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.
Signature: Deputy J Young		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):