Planning issues with field in St Martin (FOI)

​​​Request

P/2024/0019 - Planning application:  Field 494

In response to objectors' correspondence, the applicant's Agent claims the following: 

"2.3.1.2. Use of an agricultural field for equestrian purposes does not require planning permission, but does need the authorisation of LAND CONTROLS. The agent then claims that such permission has been granted by Land Controls and would have been granted because the "LAND CONTROLS SECTION " took the view that the field was of NO (marginal) USE to the AGRICULTURAL SECTOR! Does [name redacted] have any evidence that the alleged loss to Agriculture was severe ...."

A

Please confirm if the Land Control team deemed that Field 494 was not of use to the agricultural sector.

B

If the answer to question A is yes, please confirm how was this decided, by whom and who was consulted?

C

Was the tenant cattle farmer [name redacted] consulted on the viability or condition of this growing field's suitability for today’s large machinery?

D

Was The Royal Jersey Agricultural Society Cattle Department consulted?

E

Was the Jersey Farmers Union consulted?

F

This P/2024/0019 proposal is for a non-agricultural business in a prime Green Zone and what action, if any did the Land Control team take to protect Field 494 for its continued use for the farming community?

​G

Was the Land Control team aware of a strict planning condition imposed of this land that, should the previous owner's horse racing training fail, this land be returned as it was when the nearby cattle farmer was using it in, and up to, 2015?

H

I believe that this was a severe loss as it was a large easily workable field for today's large machinery.​

​I

Did the Land Control team consult Planning Officers in regard to their deliberations on Field 494?

J

Please provide a copy of the Land Control's condition report on Field 494 which was sent to the applicant’s agent.

Response

A

The Land Control team has not deemed Field 494 as being of no use to the Agricultural Sector.  Please see response to Question I below for further information.

B

See the response to Question A.

C

The tenant farmer was not consulted in relation to the requested information.

D

The Royal Jersey Agricultural Society Cattle Department were not required to be consulted regarding this matter.

E

The Jersey Farmers Union were not required to be consulted regarding this matter.

F

The Compliance team were notified of the change of use to allow them to investigate an alleged breach in planning controls. 

G

Yes, the Land Control section was aware of the planning condition imposed on this land.

H

The new owner of Field 494 was not obliged to let the field to the sitting tenant as long as the use of the field remained within agriculture.

I

Yes, the Land Control section consulted with the Planning section in conjunction with Rural Economy.  It was considered that the commercial equine business was within agriculture in accordance with the Rural Economy Strategy that was in place at the time of determination.

J

The requested document is attached.

Attachment- Agricultural consent - MN494 DR._Redacted.pdf​

Personal information within the document has been redacted in accordance with Article 25 (Personal Information) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011. 

Article applied 

Article 25 - Personal information

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005.

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if –

(a) it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005; and

(b) its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law.​