La Cotte, Le Mont du Ouiasne, St. Brelade: Planning Application (P/2018/0309): 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 15 November 2018:

Decision Reference: MD- PE- 2018 – 0081
Decision Summary Title:	Appeal Decision – La Cotte, Le Mont du Ouiasné, St Brelade (P/2018/0309)		Date of Decision Summary:	12 November 2018
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner (Strategy & Innovation)		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- La Cotte		Date of Written Report:	Undated
Written Report Author:	Nigel McGurk BSc (Hons), MCD, MBA, MRTPI 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 grant planning permission for the following development “Construct 1 No. four bed dwelling with associated parking and landscaping” at La Cotte, Le Mont du Ouiasné, St Brelade, JE3 8AW (P/2018/0309)
Decision: The Assistant Minister allowed the appeal and refused to grant permission to develop land under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 for the following reasons: 1. The site lies within the Coastal National Park as defined on the Proposals Map of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014). The Coastal National Park enjoys the highest level of protection from development and there is the strongest presumption against all forms of development therein. The development of a new dwelling may only be considered to represent a permissible exception to Policy NE6 where; - the proposal relates to the redevelopment of an existing dwelling or employment building, subject to various criteria being met (NE6.2 & 7) or; - the proposal relates to the change of use or conversion of an employment building, subject to various criteria being met (NE6. 6). The proposed development does not fit the definition of the redevelopment of an existing dwelling or employment building nor of a change of use or conversion of an employment building, as neither type of building exists on the site at the present time. Consequently, the proposal does not meet any of the specified exceptions stated in NE6 and the application, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies SP1, GD1 and NE6 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014). 2. The size, bulk and design of the proposed dwelling does not relate to, or satisfactorily respond to, the local settlement form and character, topography, landscape features and the wider landscape setting. Moreover, the submitted plans fail to demonstrate the degree to which the design, materials and finishes reflect or complement the style and traditions of local buildings. Accordingly, the proposals do not attain the high standard of design required by the Minister for the Environment and ,therefore, they fail to satisfy the requirements of Policies SP7, GD1, GD7 and NE6 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014). 3. The site lies immediatley adjacent to the Ouaisné Site of Special Interest (SSI) which is listed for its richness and diversity of habitats and species. The Jersey Biodiversity Strategy identifies that the key habitats of dunes and coastal heathland are vulnerable to the effects of development on their edges. The erection of a substantial dwelling in such close proximity to the SSI is likely to have an unreasonable impact upon the SSI and protected species and the proposal, therefore, fails to satisfy the requirements of Policies SP4, GD1, NE1, NE2 and NE6 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011 (amended 2014).
Reason for Decision: The Assistant Minister [the AM] gave full consideration to the assessment and recommendation of the Inspector as detailed in his report to the Minister and accepted the comments relating to the likelihood of unreasonable impact upon the amenities of nearby residents. However, the AM noted that the original dwelling on the site (La Cotte) had, at the time of submission of the planning application, been demolished in accordance with an approved scheme to redevelop the site (P/2008/0081 and RP/2016/1073 refer). Hence, no dwelling or any other building now exists on the site. The AM also noted that the proposals the subject of the appeal were substantially different from the previously approved schemes and could not be regarded as constituting a revision to those proposals. The AM considered that the proposal should be regarded for what it is; a planning application for the erection of a new dwelling on a vacant site within the Coastal National Park. The AM also considered that the form and design of the proposed development did not sufficiently respect or harmonise with the local context and that the proposal failed to achieve the high quality of design required by the policies of the Island Plan and of the guidance offered by the adopted Jersey Design Guide (2008). The AM further considered the objection raised against the proposed development by the Natural Environment Team of the Department for Growth, Housing and the Environment. The AM was also concerned that the proposed development could, by virtue of its proximity to the Ouaisné SSI, have a harmful impact on the habitats and protected species within the SSI. It is a matter of fact that the proposals do not meet any of the specified exceptions stated in Policy NE6 and the AM did not consider that the existence of an extant planning permission for the redevelopment of the site represented an exceptional reason that would provide sufficient justification for departing from the strongest presumption against development within the Coastal National Park.
Resource Implications:- None
Action required: Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.
Signature: Deputy G. Guida		Position: Assistant Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):