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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (13.04.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for the Store/Workshop in La Fredee Lane, St. Helier.

Subject:	Store/Workshop, La Fredee Lane, St. Helier Demolish existing store & construct 3 bedroom dwelling.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0184	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/2005/1617
Written Report Title:	REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s 1. To uphold the refusal of the planning application Refer the building to the Heritage Advisory Panel given its potential to be included on the Register of Buildings and Sites of Architectural, Archaeological and Historic Interest in Jersey.
Reason(s) for decision: Proposal is contrary to the Policy C6 of the Island Plan and no other material considerations outweighed the provisions of the Plan. Potential historical interest and existing pressure to develop the building.
Action required: Notify agent of the decision
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 13.04.06

Store/Workshop, La Fredee Lane, St. Helier - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: P/2005/1617

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Store/Workshop, La Fredee Lane, St. Helier.

Requested by	Mr. LGoodchild	Agent	PAR Architectural Services Limited

Description	Demolish existing store & construct 3 bedroom dwelling. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reason	1. The development proposed, because of its location, increase in height and mass, and loss of trees on the site, would be harmful to the character of this part of the Countryside Zone and fail to provide substaintial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the area, contrary to Policy C6 of the ‘Jersey Island Plan’, 2002 which presumes against all forms of new development for whatever purpose.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	30/12/2005

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	Policy C6 – Countryside Zone This zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose . . . within this zone there are many buildings and established uses and that to preclude all forms of development would be unreasonable. (c) there will be a presumption against the redevelopment of other commercial buildings. Exceptions may only be permitted where it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the redevelopment would give rise to substantial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area. It is expected that such improvements would arise, in particular, from significant reductions in mass, scale and built floorspace, changes in the nature and intensity of use, careful consideration of siting and design and a restoration of landscape character;

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	Former WWII storage building that forms part of a group in the immediate area. Vehicular access from La Fredee Lane. The principle of a dwelling to replace a commercial shed is only acceptable if substantial environmental gains are secured in accordance with Policy C6 (c). The existing building is not aesthetically pleasing but is unobtrusive and is currently screened well by existing mature landscaping. The proposal has an acceptable design and its footprint is marginally smaller (4m2) than the existing building. However, in addition to the only small reduction in footprint, the development fails to meet the objectives of Policy C6 (c) as it is taller and has a larger mass inclusive of an additional 12.6m2 of floor area due to the addition of a first floor. The agent states that “A slightly larger structure sympathetically designed surely represents an improvement in the character of the area”. This is not considered to be the case, not only because the building is larger (which would in itself set a precedent for other developments within the Countryside Zone), but also because the building will be more obtrusive in this location. The agent also states that only one tree will be lost and all other trees will be retained. This is considered to be unlikely due to the demolition and construction process, the siting of the dwelling only 2m from the trunks as indicated (this does not take into account root systems) and the potential pressure to remove trees due to the use of the site for residential purposes. It is likely that the development of the site would result in the loss of trees, both initially and latterly due to the use of the site and potential damage to root systems. It is unlikely that the now proposed “additional soft landscaping” would compensate for the loss of mature vegetation. The agent states that the use is “not suitable for the area”. It appears that only a benign commercial use is carried out from the site and the area is actually a mixture of agricultural/commercial and residential uses. Also, no complaints have been received about the use of the site and therefore it cannot be concluded that the use is unsuitable and as a result no significant environmental gain is brought about by a change of use to residential.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reason	As above.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 05/02/06 Consultation response dated 06/10/05 Consultation response dated 20/09/05

Endorsed by

Date