L'Industrie, La Rue de Samares, St. Clement: 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 7 November 2017:

Decision Reference: MD- PE- 2017 – 0100
Decision Summary Title:	Appeal Decision – L’Industrie, La Rue de Samares, St Clement		Date of Decision Summary:	26 October 2017
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner (Policy)		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 – L’Industrie		Date of Written Report:	21 October 2017
Written Report Author:	Graham Self MA, MSc, FRTPI Planning Inspector		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a refusal to grant planning permission at L’Industrie, La Rue de Samares, St Clement (P/2017/0495)
Decision: The Minister dismissed the appeal under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of the following development; “Demolish existing building. Construct 1 No. residential care home with 24 No. residential units and 1 No. visiting family unit with associated parking and landscaping.” and refused planning permission for the following reasons:- 1. The proposed development, by reason of its siting, height, scale, massing and close proximity to the northern boundary, would unreasonably harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties to the north of the site at No’s 9 and 10 Le Clos de la Serre. Accordingly the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Policies GD1, GD7 and SP7 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011 (Revised 2014). 2. By reason of its height, scale and massing in relation to its position within the application site, the proposed building would have a visually unsatisfactory, cramped appearance. It would also have some poor design features such as the proposed high-level gable extension on the eastern block and the large areas of obscured glazing. The landscape provision for the development would be of poor quality. The overall effect would detract from the character of the area and would be contrary to Policies GD1, GD7 and SP7 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011 (Revised2014). 3. There are inconsistencies between the application documents (including the application form, the application drawings, the Design Statement and the Planning Statement), as a result of which there are too many ambiguities about what is proposed to enable the application for detailed planning permission to be approved.
Reason for Decision: The Minister agreed with the recommendation of the Inspector.
Resource Implications:- None
Action required: Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.
Signature: Deputy S Luce		Position: Minister
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):