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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 of Tamaris, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement.

Subject:	Tamaris, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement Demolish existing dwelling & construct 1 No. 1 bed, 4 No. 2 bed & 1 No. 4 bed apartments.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0185	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/2005/2129
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: 31.05.06

Tamaris, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/2129

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Tamaris, La Grande Route de la Cote, St. Clement.

Requested by	Mr. G Pinel	Agent	FIRST 4 DESIGN LIMITED

Description	Demolish existing dwelling & construct 1 No. 1 bed, 4 No. 2 bed & 1 No. 4 bed apartments. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The application fails to demonstrate the existing building is not appropriate to repair or refurbish contrary to Policy G15 (ii) and Policy G16 (i) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. The application fails to make adequate provision for the minimisation and management of waste material arising from the demolition of the existing building and the excavation of the site, contrary to Policy G16 (ii), WM1 and WM2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed development provides insufficient car-parking for unit 3, contrary to the Minister for Planning and Environment Planning Policy Note No.3 'Parking Guidelines, 1988' and Policy G2 (vii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 4. The proposal fails to provide adequate standards of usable on-site amenity space for the flats, contrary to the minimum standards set out in planning Policy Note No.6 "A Minimum Specification for New Housing Developments, February 1994" and Policy H8 (i) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 5. The proposed third floor windows in the north elevation of the proposed building are likely to result in unacceptable overlooking of the neighbouring properties to the north east contrary to Policy G2 (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 6. The proposed development by virtue of its design, size, scale, position and use of brick to the east and west elevations would be dominant and intrusive, thereby causing harm to the character of the area and street scene in which it is located contrary to Policy G3 (i), (ii) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	17/01/2006

Zones	Built Up Area

Policies	G2 – General Development Considerations Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development: (ii) will not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; (vii) provides a satisfactory means of access, manoeuvring space within the site and adequate space for parking; G3 – Quality of Design A high standard of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and the built context will be sought in all developments. The Planning and Environment Committee will require the following matters to be taken into account as appropriate: (i) the scale, form, massing, orientation, siting and density of the development, and inward and outward views; (ii) the relationship to existing buildings, settlement form and character, topography, landscape features and the wider landscape setting; (iii) the degree to which design details, colours, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings; G15 – Replacement Buildings The replacement of buildings will normally only be permitted where the proposed development would: (i) enhance the appearance of the site and its surroundings; (ii) replace a building that it is not appropriate to repair or refurbish; (iii) not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations; (iv) involve loss of an existing building that is unsympathetic to the character and amenity of the area; and (v) be in accordance with other principles and policies of the Plan. G16 – Demolition of Buildings The demolition of a building or part of a building will normally only be permitted where the proposal: (i) involves the demolition of a building or part of a building that it is not appropriate to repair or refurbish; (ii) would not have an unacceptable impact on a Site of Special Interest, Building of Local Importance or a Conservation Area; (iii) would not have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the area; (iv) makes adequate provision for the management of waste material arising from demolition as required by Policy WM2; and (v) is in accordance with other principles and policies of the Plan. 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 as defined on the Island Proposals Map, provided that the proposal: (i) is in accordance with the required standards for housing as set by the Planning and Environment Committee;

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	It is not the role of the Request for Reconsideration to consider amended schemes (n.b. amended drawings have not been submitted) but to consider the reasonableness of the original decision. However, it is clear from the agent’s agreement to alter the scheme that the refusal of the application was reasonable. If a good quality scheme were produced, it is likely that the Department would recommend a relaxation of Policy G15 and the amenity space provision. In particular, the Department advises the reduction in the scale of the development to bring about a satisfactory scale and design to each gable end. In addition to the 9 letters of representation received regarding the application, the Department has received 3 letters of objection to the Request for Reconsideration. No significant new issues have been raised. Below are the specific comments in relation to the agent’s request for reconsideration. 1. It is agreed that the architectural quality of the building has been ruined by later additions to the extent that its current appearance contributes little to the character of the area. In this sense, the Department does not object to the building’s demolition. However, this in itself does not constitute a reason for demolition. The arguments put forward by the agent are reasonable but they do not demonstrate that the building is incapable of repair or refurbishment as this would require a structural survey. It is likely that the building could be adequately refurbished at a cost that is lower than constructing a new dwelling. If an adequate construction and demolition wastes plan were submitted, and an appropriate scheme put forward, then the Department is likely to recommend the acceptance of the demolition of the building in the interests of making best use of this land. 2. The agent does not quantify the amount of waste to be generated and therefore it is difficult to asses this aspect of the request for reconsideration. Nevertheless, it is clear that the development of this site as proposed would result in the generation of waste as it is proposed to re-use any excess material on other developments. 3. The proposed reduction of one unit would overcome the lack of car parking on the site. 4. An increase in the size of the balconies is welcomed but it is likely that the development would still fail to meet the required standard by a significant amount. It is likely that the number of units and bedrooms would need to be reduced to give the development a reasonable degree of private, usable amenity space. If this were to be provided, the Minister could consider a relaxation of the requirement given that the beach is easily accessible. 5. It is not clear how the windows on the second floor would be redesigned to prevent overlooking. This would need to be demonstrated by the agent. 6. The agent appears to be suggesting a flat roof design to follow the development to the east. This could be successful but would need to be demonstrated. The agent is correct that the area is eclectic in terms of design but the proposed development is significantly different in terms of the treatment of its gable ends. They are 16m in depth, 3-storeys tall, almost blank and use brick. Most buildings in the area are smaller in scale and are therefore not as intrusive even if they are blank. The west elevation does have some relief but this will have only a limited impact due to the size of the building and its exposed position adjacent to the entrance to Seapoint. The use of brick is also uncommon in the area and will only serve to further the discord between the buildings in the area.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter form agent dated 16/03/06 Letter form agent dated 26/04/06 Letter of representation dated 24/04/06 Letter of representation dated 19/04/06 Letter of representation dated 31/03/06 Letter of representation (not objection to the principle of the re-development) dated 31/03/06

Endorsed by		Date