3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission.

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26/10/2007) regarding: 3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of refusal of Planning Permission.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2007-0312			Application Number: P/2007/0377 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission		Date of Decision Summary:		26th October 2007
Decision Summary Author:	Marion Jones		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 :	3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission		Date of Written Report:		10.10.07
Written Report Author:	Marion Jones		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: 3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning PermissionConstruct first floor extension to west elevation. Install rooflight. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): The Minister approved the application, thereby over-ruling the previous decision to refuse the application, as taken by the Department under delegated authority. Condition: The external materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby approved shall match those of the existing building.
Reason(s) for Decision: Following a site visit the Minister determined that the proposal within a densely built-up area which offered a variety of design styles was acceptable.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Applicant and all other interested parties.
Signature:		Ass Dir Initials		Position: Minister / Assistant Minister
Date Signed:		CEO Initials		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 26 October 2007

3 Havre des Pas Gardens. Request for re-consideration of Refusal of Planning Permission.

Application Number: P/2007/0377

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	3 Havre des Pas Gardens, Le Havre des Pas, St. Helier, JE2 4PU.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. Duffy	Agent	ARCHITECTURAL PLANNING & BUILDING SERVICES LTD

Description	Construct first floor extension to west elevation. Install rooflight. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed first floor extension will due to its scale and boundary location create an overbearing impact to the adjacent property to the south of the site contrary to Policy G2 (ii) of the Jersey Island Plan 2002.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	18/06/2007

Zones	Built-Up Area

Policies	G2

Recommendation

Maintain Refusal

Comments on Case	18th June 2007 - P/2007/0377 - Refusal Notice issued to construct first floor extension to west elevation and install roof light. Several points are raised in the applicant’s Request for Reconsideration letter received on the 8th August 2007. Some of the more salient points are addressed directly below. One of the points raised refers to the privacy gains that the adjoining property to the south of the site will acquire as a result of the proposed first floor extension to the property as “we look on to back garden from bathroom window at present”. However, the structure will be overbearing to the neighbouring property to the south due to the overall increased height of the structure by 3 m and due to the fact that the development will occur on the boundary line between the two properties. Any overlooking from the applicant’s bathroom window toward the neighbouring property to the south is difficult due to the fitted opaque glass and design of the bathroom window which when opened acts as a barrier blocking off the view to the south. The agent raises the point that no objections have been received regarding the application. Notwithstanding these comments, the role of Planning is to consider the impact that development may have, not only for the current occupants, but also for future occupants should the property change hands. The immediate area and surrounding areas bordering Green Street are heavily built up reflecting a large variety of architectural styles and extensions. Photographic examples submitted of surrounding properties to the north of the site are approximately 100 metres in distance away from the property and therefore are not close enough to the applicant’s site to have direct bearing on this consideration. The applicant comments that the officer made decisions without the “right information“ but does not elaborate on what this information might be. The officer can confirm that documented site visits were carried out during the course of the assessment and a meeting was held with the applicant on site. Although no detailed information has been submitted regarding the applicant’s comments on a recent extension to a nearby dwelling being overbearing, site visits and history searches confirm that a property to the west of the site called ‘Montrieux’ has recently had permission to construct a single storey extension - P/2005/0296. In summary the applicant’s property is one of three adjoining properties. Due to its location to the north, No. 3 Havre des Pas, enjoys a larger amenity area than that of the adjoining properties to the south. It is considered that the scheme would be overbearing to the adjacent property to the south which has a limited amenity area of approximately 20m². Furthermore there are no other first floor rear extensions to immediate neighbouring properties within close proximity to the site. If approved, this proposal could set a damaging precedent. To conclude no new information has been submitted to persuade the officer that a change to the recommendation should be made.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	Same as previous.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Request for Reconsideration letter dated 7.08.07
Endorsed by		Date