La Cachette, 1 Brampton Farm, Chemin de l'Eglise, St. Ouen

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26.06.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for La Cachette, 1 Brampton Farm, Chemin de l'Eglise, St. Ouen.

Subject:	La Cachette 1 Brampton Farm Le Chemin de L'Eglise St. Ouen Construct single storey extension to form garage and garden store. Erect fence around existing oil tank.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0184	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/2007/0575
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of planning Consent	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision: The previous decision to refuse consent for the extension was maintained but advice given that if the extension were reduced in size and mass then it could be supported.
Reason for decision: It was considered that the extension was too large and dominated the building which is a Building of Local Interest and was therefore contrary to Policy G13 of the Island Plan 2002.
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and any other interested parties
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 26.06.07

La Cachette, 1 Brampton Farm, Chemin de l'Eglise, St. Ouen - maintain refusal

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2007/0575

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	La Cachette, 1 Brampton Farm, Le Chemin de L'Eglise, St. Ouen.

Requested by	Ms. F. Gray	Agent	DYSON & BUESNEL ARCHITECTS

Description	Construct single storey extension to form garage and garden store. Erect fence around existing oil tank. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposed garage and store, by virtue of the size and siting, would be harmful to the character and setting of this Building of Local Interest Group, specifically the bakehouse which would largely be enveloped by the proposed development and its character unacceptably altered. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy G13 of the Island Plan 2002 which states that there will be a presumption in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character and integrity of registered buildings and places. Permission will not normally be granted for extensions or other external works which would adversely affect the architectural or historic interest, character or setting of a registered building.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	13/04/2007

Zones	Water Pollution Safeguard Area Countryside Zone Building Of Local Interest

Policies	G13

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	Pre-application advice was requested on the proposal in the summer of 2006 when the Department was experiencing staff shortages and illness in the Historic Buildings Section. The Department gave the best advice it could, in good faith, that the proposals were acceptable. As always this advice was without prejudice to a formal decision. By the time the application was submitted the Department’s Principal Historic Buildings Officer had been appointed and the application was submitted to that Section for a consultation in the normal way. The consultation response was in the negative, stating that the proposal would be harmful to the character and setting of the BLI group, specifically the existing bakehouse which would largely enveloped by the proposed development and its character unacceptably altered. On receipt of that consultation the architect contacted the Case Officer who advised the Assistant Director of the pre-application advice The pre-app advice was taken on board, but as the concerns of the Historic Buildings Officer were so strong he considered that a refusal of the application was the appropriate decision. The architect and applicant are understandably aggrieved at this decision and refer to the pre-application advice. Whilst acknowledging that the advice was without prejudice they consider that as Policy G13 has not changed that the refusal boils down to a difference of opinion between Officers. The view of the Department is that the original advice was given to the best of its ability at the time, but once the advice of a Historic Building Officer was available it was clear that their professional advice differed very significantly from the view of the Development Control Officers. Whilst it is rare for pre-application advice to be revised in this way, because of the historical importance of the group of buildings it is considered that the professional advice must stand. The Minister may wish to return the applicant’s planning fee in the circumstances.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal

Reasons	Proposals would be harmful to this BLI

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date	20 June 2007