Government of Jersey

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (29/07/2008) regarding: Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008 -0186			Application Number: P/2007/2794
Decision Summary Title :	Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter		Date of Decision Summary:		11.08.08
Decision Summary Author:	Elizabeth Ashworth		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		N/A
Written Report Title :	Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter		Date of Written Report:		17.04.08
Written Report Author:	Elizabeth Ashworth		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter Raise roof to create first floor. Construct balcony to west elevation and single storey extensions to east elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.
Decision(s): At the public meeting on the 20th May 2008 the Minister deferred making a decision in order to undertake a site visit with the architect and applicants. The site visit took place on the 29th July when the Minister decided to maintain the decision to refuse the application. However the Minister advised that he would be prepared to consider a contemporary solution to providing accommodation in the first floor. The Minister also suggested that the applicants consider demolishing and starting again with a completely new design as the existing structure constrains the potential development at first floor in a manner that meets the Minister’s requirement for high quality design.
Reason(s) for Decision: Policy SO15 states that extensions and alterations will only be permitted where the proposal does not detract from the character or appearance of the setting. Policy C6 states that extensions and alterations may only be permitted where the scale and design would not detract from or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the countryside. It is considered that the proposals fail to meet these criteria for the reasons stated above.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 29.07.08

Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter - request for re-consideration.

Application Number: P/2007/2794

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Le Vignoble, La Rue de la Presse, St. Peter.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. Garnett	Agent	Wildbore Hands Limited

Description	Raise roof to create first floor. Construct balcony to west elevation and single storey extensions to east elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Conditions
Reasons	1. The proposal, by reason of its height, scale, form, design and mass would result in a harmful visual appearance in the landscape and is therefore contrary to Policies C6, G3 and SO15 of the Island Plan 2002 which seek to protect the countryside side from unacceptable development. 2. The property is served by a septic tank and soakaway and therefore the proposal is contrary to Policy NR2 of the Island Plan 2002. 3. The proposed balcony would result in overlooking prejudice to the adjacent property to the north.

Determined by	Delegated Refused

Date	14/01/2008

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area St Ouen's Bay Planning Framework

Policies	C6 C7 Countryside Zone St Ouen's Bay Planning Framework

Recommendation

Maintain refusal

Comments on Case	The proposals not only involve an increase in the height of the building by 2.5m but a significant increase in the mass of the building. This is clearly demonstrated on plan but also on the model that has been submitted. Presently two bungalows sit side by side quietly in the landscape. It is considered that the increase in the height and mass is significant and to the extent that it would be visually damaging to the visual appearance of the landscape. Although the architect states that the buildings are well screened, the Department does not share that view. Policy SO15 states that extensions and alterations will only be permitted where the proposal does not detract from the character or appearance of the setting. Policy C6 states that extensions and alterations may only be permitted where the scale and design would not detract from or unreasonably harm the visually sensitive character and scenic quality of the countryside. It is considered that the proposals fail to meet these criteria for the reasons stated above. In his letter the architect refers to a number of other properties in the St Ouen Bay Special Area that havce been aletered and extended to include the raising of roofs. However each of these cases involves structures that stand in their own grounds, and whilst it is accepted that these properties have had, in some cases, substantial alterations, it is not considered that the circumstances are directly comparable. Although the architect states that Policy NR2 is not applicable the proposals involve an increase in the number of bedrooms from 3 to 5 and therefore this policy is relevant.

Recommendation	Maintain refusal.

Reasons	As above

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from architect

Endorsed by		Date	6 May 2008