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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (23.11.07) to maintain the planning decision on Roselea, Georgetown Road, St. Saviour.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2007-0301		Application Number: RW/2007/1682 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Roselea Georgetown Road St Saviour - Request for reconsideration of the decision to exclude the windows to the south (front) elevation from the application.	Date of Decision Summary:		23/11/07
Decision Summary Author:	Elizabeth Stables	Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written & Oral	Person Giving Oral Report:		Richard Glover
Written Report Title :	Roselea Georgetown Road St Saviour - Request for reconsideration of the decision to exclude the windows to the south (front) elevation from the application.	Date of Written Report:		8/11/07
Written Report Author:	Elizabeth Stables	Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: ,Roselea, Georgetown Road, St. Saviour Replacement windows to rear. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for replacement of front windows.
Decision(s) At a public meeting held on the 23rd November 2007, the Minister decided to uphold the decision to exclude the windows on the southern (front) elevation from the application.
Reason(s) for Decision: This building pre-dates 1920, is prominent from the road and is of pleasant appearance. The introduction of upvc window frames into the main elevation would be contrary to Policy G3, HWD5 and emerging Policy HE4
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:			Position:
Date Signed:			Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 23 November 2007

Roselea, Georgetown Road, St. Saviour - maintain planning decision

Application Number: RW/2007/1682

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Roselea, Georgetown Road, St. Saviour.

Requested by		Agent	Jersey Double Glazing Ltd

Description	Replacement windows to rear. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for replacement of front windows.

Type	Replacement Windows

Original Decision	APPROVED, but with a restriction that this only applied to the windows to the rear

Conditions	No additional conditions were added


Determined by	Delegated Approved

Date	10/09/2007

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	HWD5 (and emerging Policy HE4) G3

Recommendation

Maintain decision, that only the aluminium framed windows on the rear elevation be replaced with 2 pane upvc frames.

Comments on Case	The property is pre-1920, but not Registered and is terraced with other residential properties of non-matching designs fronting Georgetown Road. The relevant policies are HWD5, which is being updated by the emerging Policy HE4, and G3. The application sought to replace the front door and all ground floor and first floor windows on the front elevation, and 3 windows on the rear at first and second floor. The existing window frames are aluminium, the proposed are 2 pane light oak coloured upvc with a pivoting opening system. The existing door is a timber framed modern style glazed door, proposed to be replaced with upvc. The design was not specified. The property has been altered with the addition of flat roofed dormers to the front and rear. There is no planning history. Receipt of the application, and of the Request for Reconsideration were advertised on site and in the press. No representations were received. There were no consultations. All of the policies noted above seek to retain original features where possible or replication of the originals in order to enhance the appearance of non-Registered buildings. This includes the proportions, method of opening, visual weight, detail and finish. The proposed window style does not reflect or complement the style of window original to this property which would have been a 2 pane vertical sliding timber sash. The property is prominently located so that the front elevation is highly visible. The rear is land locked. Permission was granted for the replacement of the aluminium windows to the rear, which will not be visible to public view, but this was not thought acceptable on the front elevation. The description was therefore amended to apply to the rear elevation only and an informative added to the permit to explain that replacement windows to the front should be timber framed replicas of the original windows. The agents letter requesting Reconsideration states that the existing windows are of poor quality and design, and that the proposed replacements will give the appearance of a sash and be of better quality than the existing. The letter is attached.
`
Recommendation	Maintain decision to approve the windows to the rear only.

Reasons	Replacement windows to the front elevation of the design and materials proposed is damaging to the appearance of this historic building, is therefore unacceptable and contrary to Policy HWD5, emerging Policy HE4 and Policy G3(iii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 19 September 2007

Endorsed by		Date