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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26/06/2007) regarding: Fairfield, Trinity - Maintain Refusal.

Subject:	Fairfield, Trinity Conversion of existing barn into 4 residential units. Hardstanding & landscaping. REVISED PLANS: New openings to west elevation. Single storey extension to north east corner. Minor changes to layout. AMENDED PLANS: New vehicular access. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: Construct 4 no. garages. Alterations to bin store. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0178	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written and oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		RP/2007/0262
Written Report Title:	Request For Reconsideration Report	Written report – Author:		Sara Marsh (Mrs). RIBA.
Decision: Maintain Refusal
Reason(s) for decision: The refusal has been maintained for the reasons given in the original decision.
Action required: Decision maintained letter to be sent to agent.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 26th June 2007

Fairfield Trinity - Maintain Refusal.

Application Number: RP/2007/0262

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Fairfield, La Rue du Hurel, Trinity, JE3 5JR.

Requested by	. RP Homes Limited	Agent	PAR Architectural Services Limited

Description	Conversion of existing barn into 4 residential units. Hardstanding & landscaping. REVISED PLANS: New openings to west elevation. Single storey extension to north east corner. Minor changes to layout. AMENDED PLANS: New vehicular access. FURTHER REVISED PLANS: Construct 4 no. garages. Alterations to bin store. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Revised Plans

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed works would harm the architectural character, setting and integrity of this traditional agricultural building resulting in an unacceptable visual harm to the character of the countryside contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	18/04/2007

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	C6, G2, G3 and NR2

Recommendation

MAINTAIN REFUSAL

Comments on Case	In submitting a planning application for the conversion of former agricultural buildings and in gaining consent the applicant has achieved new dwellings within the countryside, which are otherwise precluded unless they are for proven agricultural need. In choosing to develop the agricultural buildings in the manner in which they have the developer has made a conscious decision not to include garaging or ancillary storage in the scheme. The scheme as originally approved met the parking standards as prescribed by the Island Plan. Furthermore the condition removing the Permitted Development rights from the properties does not prevent the occupiers making applications for the siting of sheds for external storage. It does allow the Minister, through delegated powers, to control the size and appearance of such structures to protect the appearance and character of the countryside. If the developer had been so keen to provide the end users with garaging and external storage then he would have included it in the initial scheme at the expense of at least one unit. It is not therefore unreasonable to assume that profit was the stronger motivator in the scheme. Crill Canavan in their letter of 2nd May are correct that garages are considered ancillary buildings, however the policy clearly states that such buildings will only be acceptable where their scale, location and design would not detract from or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside. It is the view of the officer that if the applicant had sought to conceive a sensitive scheme then provision for the garaging of cars would have been made within the existing building envelope. The addition of ancillary buildings on a site such as this, which has only gained consent for development under the special circumstances of its existence, represents a creeping urbanisation of the countryside – the very thing that the policies of the Plan seek to protect. With regard to the precedent quoted at North Lynn Farm, St Martin, this development is, in the view of the case officer, an unsuccessful reuse of redundant agricultural buildings for reasons of density, urbanisation and a detrimental affect upon the character of the Green Zone and as such represents a solution that should not be held up as an example.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal.

Reasons	1. The proposed works would harm the architectural character, setting and integrity of this traditional agricultural building resulting in an unacceptable visual harm to the character of the countryside contrary to Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan. Letter from Cril Canavan dated 2nd May 2007

Endorsed by		Date