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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (31.05.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Maison des Geonnais, St. Ouen

Subject:	Maison des Geonnais, St Ouen RETROSPECTIVE: Portacabin to be positioned on the west gable of the house.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0166	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/2006/0038
Written Report Title:	RETROSPECTIVE: Portacabin to be positioned on the west gable of the house. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s Remove an unauthorised portacabin at the above address.
Reason(s) for decision: Contrary to Policy C5 of Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Action required: Advise applicant and serve enforcement notice.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 31/05/2006

Maison de Geonnais, St. Ouen - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2006/0038

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Maison des Geonnais, La Rue des Geonnais, St. Ouen.

Requested by	Mr. E FLe Gresley & Mrs C J Hill	Agent	& Mrs C J Hill

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Portacabin to be positioned on the west gable of the house. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The site lies in the Green Zone and the portacabin is contrary to Policy C5 of the Island Plan which states that this zone will have a high level of protection and there will be a presumption against new development for whatever purpose.

Determined by	Sub Committee Refusal

Date	24/02/2006

Zones	Green Zone

Policies	C5

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The retrospective application was refused by the Panel who also agreed to the serving of a notice for the removal of the unauthorised portacabin. Although the portacabin has been sited alongside the cottage, and cannot be readily seen from the surrounding area there is no justification in the retention of the structure for the purpose of an office. The applicants have stated that they only require the portacabin for a temporary period of 3 years to house the office for their stonemasonry business until such time as they may make an application to extend the property. The property comprises 4 bedrooms and they have 4 children, 3 girls and one boy and if they are not able to retain the portacabin then the 3 girls will need to share a bedroom. As 2 of them are at secondary school stage the applicants considers that privacy is needed for them.
	The applicants have only recently moved to the property and therefore must have been aware that it could not accommodate the needs of their combined families and the need for an office. In the Case Officer’s report to the Panel she advised that had work commenced on an extension and it had been discovered that a portacabin had been installed, then it is likely that the only action that would have been taken would be to ensure that the portacabin was removed in a specified timescale. However, this is clearly not the case and there has been no application for an extension to date. It is not is it a foregone conclusion that an extension to the building would in fact be supported. It is considered that no new planning grounds have been put forward that would justify a reversal of the Panel’s decision to refuse consent and to serve a notice for the removal of the unauthorised structure.
Recommendation	Maintain refusal and the serving of a notice to remove the portacabin.

Reasons	As before.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Previous Case Officer Report to the Panel Act dated 22 February 2006-05-23 Letter from applicant.

Endorsed by		Date