Les Capcons, Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (16.02.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Les Capcons, Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade.

Subject:	Les Capcons, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade Construct 2 bedroom extension to form separate unit of accommodation.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0137	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:		PP/2006/2048
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning permission	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) The Minister decided to maintain the decision to refuse consent.
Reason(s) for decision: Poor design, a new unit of accommodation is contrary to Island Plan policies, and substandard access.
Action required: Letter to architect.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 16.02.07

Les Capcons, Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade - maintain refusal

Application Number: PP/2006/2048

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Les Capcons, Le Mont a la Brune, St. Brelade.

Requested by	Mr. B RQueree	Agent	GODEL ARCHITECTS

Description	Construct 2 bedroom extension to form separate unit of accommodation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning Principle

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposals by virtue of the size, unacceptable design and location would be visually intrusive and harmful to the character of the area and therefore fail to satisfy the criteria of Policy C4, G2 and G3 of the Island Plan 2002. 1. 1.C4 states that the Zone of Outstanding Character will be given the highest level of protection and this will be given priority over all other planning considerations. In this zone there will be the strongest presumption against development. 1. 2. 2.G2 states that applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area. 2. 2. G3 states that 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 development. 2. 3. The proposed new unit of accommodation is contrary to Policy SO15 of the St Ouen's Bay Planning Framework which states that extensions and alterations to dwellings will only be permitted where the proposal does not create a separate dwelling or annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling. 3. 4. The use of the existing access is not supported by Transport and Technical Services (Highways) and therefore the proposal fails to satisfy Policy G2 which states that applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development provides a satisfactory means of access.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	02/11/2006

Zones	Zone of Outstanding Character Designated Ecological SSI St Ouen's Bay Special Area Aircraft Noise Zone 3

Policies

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Although the architect has emphasised the apparent anomaly of the zoning of this site in the Zone of Outstanding Character, a fact upon which the Department would not disagree, this is not the main reason for refusal of this application. Pre-application advice was first given in 2005 that a new unit of accommodation here was not acceptable as it was contrary to Policy C4 and SO15 of the St Ouen’s Bay Planning Framework which states that extensions and alterations to dwellings will only be permitted where the proposal does not create a separate dwelling or annexe that could be used as a separate dwelling. Concern was also expressed about the design of the proposed extension being a flat roofed structure linking the garage and the main house. The applicant has lived in the property for many years and wishes to remain on site but in a smaller unit created out of the existing garage. This is clearly contrary to Policy SO15, even if as the architect suggests, it could be incorporated back into the main house at a later stage. The secondary issue is the unacceptable design of the link which is in the form of a flat roofed link and as such fails to satisfy Policies G2 and G3 of the Island Plan 2002. Finally the use of the existing access is not supported by Transport and Technical Services Highways and therefore the proposed also fails to satisfy Policy G2 which states that applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development provides a satisfactory means of access. There is no justification for an exception to be made to the Policies described above on this basis of this scheme,

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letters from architect

Endorsed by		Date	7 February 2007