Au Caprice Hotel, La Route de la Haule, St Brelade: (Planning Application P/2018/1696): Appeal decision

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 17 January 2020

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2020-0003			Application Reference: P/2018/1696
Decision Summary Title:	Appeal Decision – Au Caprice Hotel, La Route de la Haule, St Brelade		Date of Decision Summary:	06 January 2020
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Policy Planner – Strategic Policy, Planning & Performance		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title :	Inspector’s Report- Au Caprice Hotel		Date of Written Report:	02 January 2020
Written Report Author:	Graham Self MA, MSc, FRTPI Planning Inspector		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a decision to refuse planning permission for; “Demolish existing extension. Construct two storey extension to North-West elevation with roof terraces, balcony to South-East elevation and convert hotel to form 5 No. two bed and 1 No. one bed residential units. AMENDED PLANS: Omit 1 No. two bed residential flat” at Au Caprice Hotel, La Route de la Haule, St Brelade JE3 8BA
Decision: The Assistant Minister dismissed the appeal and refused to grant planning permission for the following reason: The inconsistencies between the originally submitted plans and information provided in the application form and, between the material submitted with the application and that considered by the Planning Committee and, subsequently, presented at the planning appeal has resulted in there being too many ambiguities and confusion about what is proposed to enable the application to be accurately assessed.
Reason for Decision: The Assistant Minister agreed with the findings of the Inspector that the inconsistencies in the planning application documents cause doubts over the exact nature of the proposed development. However, whilst acknowledging the Inspector’s suggestion that a conditional planning permission may be appropriate, the Assistant Minister considered that a conditional permission requiring the submission of a schedule describing the proposal accurately and listing all the proposed amendments and corrections to the original application would, potentially, result in the approval of a detailed development proposal that was not subject to a rigorous process of public consultation and consideration by the Department and the Planning Committee. Given the inadequacy of the application documents, the Assistant Minister does not offer any opinion as to the planning merits, or otherwise, of the proposed development.
Resource Implications: None.
Action required: Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.
Signature: Deputy G. Guida		Position: Assistant Minister for the Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):