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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (26/08/2008) regarding: Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, St. John - Request for re-consideration.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2008 -0188			Application Number: P/2007/1204
Decision Summary Title :	Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, , St. John		Date of Decision Summary:		12/08/08
Decision Summary Author:	Jonathan Gladwin		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Oral and written		Person Giving Oral Report:		Jonathan Gladwin
Written Report Title :	Request for reconsideration of condition at Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, St. John		Date of Written Report:		23/04/08
Written Report Author:	Jonathan Gladwin		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, St. John AMENDED PLANS: Demolish first floor conservatory and replace with new extension. Create new front entrance door with canopy and boiler room. Alterations to form enlarged kitchen, utility room and ensuite. Erect 8 No. solar panels and 2 No. roof lights. 2 new window openings at first floor to east elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION regarding amending conditions 2 and 3 of planning permission.
Decision(s): On the Ministerial meeting of the 20 May 2008 this request for reconsideration was heard. The Minister deferred a decision to consider the application further. On the 04 July 2008 the Minister decided to amend Conditions 3 and 4 to reduce the height of the privacy screen to the height shown on the approved plans and decided not to obscure glaze two of the windows.
Reason(s) for Decision: The request to vary/amend the conditions were allowed as the Minister was satisfied that the proposals on balance did not cause an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties. The two conditions in question were amended to read: 3. As shown on the approved plans, the two bathroom windows in the east elevation of the property shall be fitted with obscure glass prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted and thereafter permanently maintained. 4. The privacy screen to the balcony shall be obscure glazed to a height as shown on the approved plans and shall be permanently retained in its approved position.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Applicant and other interested parties
Signature:		PLeg / PT Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 04.07.08

Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, St. John - Request for re-consideration.

Application Number: P/2007/1204

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Cotswold, La Rue de L'Etocquet, St. John.

Requested by	Mr & Mrs. Harrison	Agent	NSJ Chartered Surveyors

Description	AMENDED PLANS: Demolish first floor conservatory and replace with new extension. Create new front entrance door with canopy and boiler room. Alterations to form enlarged kitchen, utility room and ensuite. Erect 8 No. solar panels and 2 No. roof lights. 2 new window openings at first floor to east elevation. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	APPROVED

Conditions	1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans and documents permitted under this permit. No variations shall be made without the prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment 2. INFORMATIVE: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of foul and surface waters has been approved and implemented. 3. The bedroom and two bathroom windows in the east elevation and the bedroom window in the west elevation of the property shall be fitted with obscure glass prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted and thereafter permanently maintained. 4. Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved, the privacy screen to the balcony shall be obscure glazed to a height of 1.8m and shall be permanently retained in its approved position. 5. The external materials to be used in the development hereby approved, shall match those of the existing building.
Reasons	1. To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. 3. To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property. 4. To prevent overlooking and loss of privacy of the occupiers of the adjoining property. 5. In the interests of visual amenity.

Determined by	Delegated Approved

Date	15/02/2008

Zones	Green Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	G2 – General Considerations G3 – Quality of Design H8 – Housing Development Within the Built Up Area

Recommendation

Amend Condition 4 for the screen to be the same height as the existing wall, which is to the height shown on the approved plans.

Amend Condition 3 to read: ‘The top half only of both the bedroom window in the east elevation and the bedroom window in the west elevation of the property shall be fitted with obscure glass and the two bathroom windows shall be fitted with obscure glazing prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted and thereafter permanently maintained’.

Comments on Case	This was an application for a first floor extension with various alterations that was approved subject to conditions on 15 February 2008. This RFR is against Condition 3 and Condition 4 of the Permit regarding the obscure glazing and privacy screen conditions. The applicant states that: The privacy screen at the height conditioned of 1.8m is unnecessary and unsightly and will restrict views. A letter has been received from a neighbour, Mrs Larbalestier, saying believes the screen would be out of character and no objections to the wall being retained or a new screen to the same height as the wall. It is unnecessary for the windows that are conditioned to be obscure glazed as there would be limited overlooking from the affected windows and not requested originally by the Planning Department. In response: The privacy screen condition (Condition 4) was attached following a strong letter of objection from the neighbour, Mr Larbalestier over overlooking concerns and following consultation with the Principal Planner and the Assistant Director with particular concerns over a third party appeal from these neighbours regarding overlooking. Having said that, the Departments original view during Officer discussions with the Architect regarding amendments needed to the original scheme, was that the glazing screen should be to the same height as the wall around the existing terrace. As such the Department accepts that this original advice should now stand and that we agree that the screen should be to the height as shown on the approved plans. The Department consider that the obscure glazing condition should remain due to overlooking concerns, albeit amended so as only the top half of the bedroom window to the east and the window to the west shall be obscure glazed, the bathroom window to the east should be obscure glazed fully as shown on the approved plans. There exists overlooking concerns already in the immediate area as evidenced by the use of hedges, bamboo and temporary high level fencing to the south, in this highly built up area where the houses are in close proximity. If any of these privacy screens are removed or reduced in size, particularly the hedge to the east which it is understood is in the ownership of Cotswold (and therefore the neighbours on the other side would not be able to control the retention or height of), then there will exist privacy problems at quite short distances from the application property.

Recommendation	Amend Condition 4 for the screen to be the same height as the existing wall, which is to the height shown on the approved plans. Amend Condition 3 to read: ‘The top half only of both the bedroom window in the east elevation and the bedroom window in the west elevation of the property shall be fitted with obscure glass and the two bathroom windows shall be fitted with obscure glazing prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted and thereafter permanently maintained’.

Reasons	In the interests of visual amenity.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter dated 28 February 2008 and 18 March 2008 from Applicant One letter of support

Endorsed by		Date