Ville au Veslet, St Lawrence: Approval 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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 28 March 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0025			Application Number: P/2011/0183 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Ville au Veslet, Mont Isaac, , St. Lawrence, ,		Date of Decision Summary:		27 March 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	P/2011/0183		Date of Written Report:		28 February 2012
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Ville au Veslet, Mont Isaac, , St. Lawrence, , Construct extension to existing shed North-East and South-East elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): At the public Ministerial Meeting of 13 March 2012 the Minister considered the Department Report, and heard from the agent for the applicant. The Minister deferred his formal decision until he had undertaken a site visit. The Minister undertook the site visit on 19 March 2012, accompanied by an Officer, and was joined on site by the agent for the applicant. Having considered the policies of the Jersey Island Plan and all material considerations, on 26th March 2012 the Minister decided to APPROVE the application, subject to the conditions and reasons set out below.
Reason(s) for Decision: REASON FOR APPROVAL Permission has been granted having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other material considerations, including the consultations and representations received. The Minister considers that in accordance with Policies ERE6 and NE7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 the necessary justification has been provided, and the structure is appropriately located. CONDITIONS and REASONS 1. The structure hereby approved shall be used solely for the purposes of storing agricultural machinery and under no circumstances should any non-agricultural machinery (including any related to, owned or operated by non-agricultural family businesses) be stored in the structure. In accordance with Policy ERE6 the structure has been permitted only on the basis of an identified agricultural need. 2. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme to show the retained areas of outside storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of any element of the development hereby permitted, and retained in perpetuity thereafter. The scheme shall include provision for all elements of the agricultural and non-agricultural storage requirements of the businesses undertaken from the site, and shall not include any storage in Field 440A. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of the character of the area generally, in accordance with Policy NE7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 3. In the event that the agricultural building hereby approved falls into long-term disuse or disrepair it shall be removed from the site and the land restored to agricultural use. These structures have been permitted because of a proven agricultural need. In the event of long-term disuse or disrepair the Minister for Planning and Environment will seek to ensure that the rural character of the area is protected by requiring these structures to be removedin accordance with Policy ERE 6 of the Island Plan, 2011. 4. A detailed proposal for the landscaping of the site, to include Field 440A, shall be included as part if the detailed planning application. This must include details of the number, species and location of both existing and proposed tree and shrubs. The drawings are to be supplemented with a programme of implementation with details of: (a) the method to be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs; (b) the method of planting to be adopted; (c) the arrangements to be made for the maintenance of the landscaped areas. To ensure that before development proceeds provision is made for a landscaping regime that will enhance the appearance of the development and help to assimilate it into the landscape , in accordance with Policy NE 7 of the Island Plan, 2011. 5. All planting and other operations comprised in the landscaping scheme approved under this permission, shall be carried out and completed in the first planting season following the commencement of the development. To ensure that the benefits of the approved landscaping scheme are not delayed and consequently make an early contribution to the amenity of the site in the interest of sustaining and enhancing landscape quality, in accordance with Policy NE 7 of the Island Plan, 2011. 6. Any trees or plant(s) planted in accordance with the approved scheme, which within a period of five years from the planting taking place; die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Minister for Planning and Environment gives written consent to a variation of the scheme. To mitigate against the potential failure of trees and plants, and the extent to which that failure might threaten the success of the landscaping scheme, in accordance with Policy NE 7 of the Island Plan, 2011. 7. Before installation, details of any floodlighting/external lighting on the site must be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. This must include: a) The photometric data for the specified light fitting; b) A site plan showing the lux plot layout of all horizontal and vertical surfaces of the designed lighting layout across the site; and, c) A wall elevation/section showing the proposed mounting height and aiming position of each luminaire. To ensure that the amenities of neighbours and the area, are not harmed through light pollution, in accordance with Policy GD 1 of the Island Plan, 2011.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Ville au Veslet, St Lawrence: Approval of planning permission

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Application Number: P/2011/0183

Request for Reconsideration Report
Up-Date Report for Minister

Site Address	Ville au Veslet, Mont Isaac, St. Lawrence.

Requested by	Mr. R. Amy	Agent	CAD Architects

Description	Construct extension to existing shed North-East and South-East elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION for refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the need for the proposed development cannot be met from the use of existing agricultural buildings, and as such the application fails to overcome the strong presumption against development within Policy ERE6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

Determined by	Delegated Refusal / Planning Application Panel

Date	11/10/2011 and 25/01/2012

Zones	Potential Listed Building Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	ERE2 – Agricultural Buildings, Extensions and Horticultural Structures

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The application was refused by Officers under delegated powers, with the reason set out above. Following this determination, the applicant submitted a Request for Reconsideration, heard by the Planning Panel in January 2012. The vote of the Panel was a split decision (2 votes to approve, 2 votes to refuse). In such circumstances the application was referred to the Minister, who called the matter in for his determination. The case of both parties remains as per the original Request for Consideration Report dated 10th January 2012 (attached). However, after the January Panel meeting the applicant and the Department exchanged emails on issues of policy and process. These are also attached to this Report. Essentially the email exchange focused on two issues, being: 1. that the applicant wanted to ensure that they were afforded an opportunity to present their case first-hand to the decision maker in a public forum - this is secured by the Ministerial Meeting. 2. the applicant is now clear that the focus of the Department concerns relate to the “General Purpose” shed. The policy tests set out a “strong presumption against” proposals for new sheds, and establish several tests to enable informed decisions to be made. One of the tests is whether the need can be met in existing agricultural or horticultural buildings elsewhere. The focus of the Department case is that the General Purpose shed has no planning restrictions, so it can be used for agriculture (as it presently is, in part). The shed is centrally placed on the farm holding, and it is within the same ownership as the farm. The only issue is that the farm owner allows a third party building contractors business to be run from it. In response the applicant has confirmed that in their view it is unreasonable that the applicants son should have to move the builders business from the shed, where it has been for 10 years. The personal relationships are such that the building contractors business is run by the applicant, who is the son of the farm owner, and who also runs an agricultuiral contractors business (separate from the buildings business, and the farm – although given the nature of these operations, some equipment is occasionally shared across any of the three enterprises). The family consider the shed as his building shed, which he built and paid for, but he does allow some of his mothers agricultural equipment to be stored in it. The Department are of the view that the conclusion is entirely within the remit of the farm owner. It is unfortunate that they have decided their priority is not the agricultural need, but with the building contractor. The recommendation remains as per the Officer Delegated Report and the original Request for Reconsideration Report (both attached), being that permission should be refused.

Recommendation	Maintain Refusal

Reasons	As previously

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan

Endorsed by		Date	28 February 2012