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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (20.03.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for 1 Tudor Close, St. Brelade.

Subject:	1 Tudor Close St. Brelade Construct extension to north elevation and loft conversion over garage.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0176	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Elizabeth Stables
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		P/2006/2359
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning Consent	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Stables
Decision(s) – Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for decision: The impact of the proposed extension on the property to the north, by reason of loss of light, is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Policies G2(ii) and G3(i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
Action required: Letter sent to applicant confirming decision maintained 20 March 2007 reasons given as above.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 20.03.07

1 Tudor Close, St. Brelade - maintain refusal

Application Number: P/2006/2359

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	1, Tudor Close, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. P Maloney	Agent	Russell Kinnaird

Description	Construct extension to north elevation and loft conversion over garage. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The impact of the proposed extension on the property to the north, by reason of loss of light, is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to Policies G2(ii) and G3(i) and (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	05/01/2007

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	H8, G2 and G3

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	The applicant states that a) the decision to refuse the application was unduly influenced by the objection from the owners of Richmond; b) that there will be no significant loss of light or unreasonable impact on the surrounding area; c) the needs of the applicants family for additional space are being sacrificed at the cost of the pool at Richmond; d) the pool at Richmond has hedging to the north and west which cause loss of light to the property; e) there will be no overlooking; f) the property is in the built up area. In response: a) is strongly refuted although it is the impact of the proposal on Richmond to the north that was the reason for refusal. b) Is not agreed. The proximity to the boundary on the north, and the height of the proposed new roof are the main areas of concern. The roof over the proposed bedroom measures 7.3m from ground level to ridge, which is an additional 4.4m above the existing flat roof and only 0.7m lower than the ridge of the main house roof. This would be only 0.5m from the northern boundary of the plot. The plots are not regular shapes, but Richmond is less than 5m from the boundary at the rear, and the impact of the first floor extension is greater because the application site is due south of Richmond, which has a very small rear garden, all in direct line of shadow of the new roof. c) Policies G2 and G3 require applicants to demonstrate that a proposal will not unreasonably impact on neighbouring uses and that the scale, form , massing, orientation, siting and density of the proposal and the relationship to existing buildings to be taken into consideration. In this instance these factors have outweighed the needs of this family to extend their house. d) Shadowing from the south will have a greater effect on Richmond than hedging to the north and west, which in any case falls outside of planning law. e) and f) are agreed.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from applicant dated 16 January 2007

Endorsed by		Date