Cheraleen is a large modern farm complex on the northern side of La Rue d'Olive. The farm consists of agricultural sheds and 300 vergees of land adjacent the site which are rented, primarily to grow Jersey Royal potatoes. Staff are employed on a seasonal basis to work on the farm, planting, harvesting, grading and packing and produce. There are currently 11 poor quality portacabin style structures on site without planning consent. The proposal is to install 10 new replacement units. The application was refused primarily because the Department is not convinced that the new units meet ‘essential needs’, harmful encroachment into the Green Zone and insufficient drainage details. The applicants grounds can be summarised below and these will be addressed in turn: - New units are essential to meet Building Byelaw requirements
- New units meet an essential need for staff accommodation
- New units are of better design quality having no adverse amenity impacts and existing units cannot be removed under Planning Law.
- The new units would have adequate drainage requirements
1. It is accepted that the relocation of the proposed new units would better comply with Building Control Regulations in terms of the prevention of the spread of flames and internal lining specification etc. and that the current units do not meet current standards. Notwithstanding this, it is not the responsibility of the Planning Department to resolve this issue. The 6 portacabins approved in 1992 were supposed to be removed in 1995. This is the sole responsibility of the applicant. Were the portacabins removed in 1995 as required, Building Control requirements would not be a valid material consideration. 2. Policies SP1 and NE7 of the newly adopted Island Plan seek to retain development within the built-up areas and Policy H9 states that ‘staff and key agricultural worker accommodation should be provided within the built-up area’. Whilst it is understandably an advantage for the applicant to have 20 staff accommodated on site as proposed, it is not accepted that it is essential to the proper functioning of the business. The grounds for appeal suggest that the price of alternative housing for staff is prohibitive which would affect the viability of the holding. In response, it is accepted by the applicant that they are operating in the knowledge that the existing units should have been removed in 1995 and the cost of housing does not in itself form adequate justification or essential need to provide 10 new units of accommodation in the Green Zone. If this was the case, all new agricultural staff accommodation units would be required to be sited at agricultural holdings which would be contrary to policies SP1, NE7 and H9 of the newly adopted Island Plan. Alternative forms of accommodation may not be prohibitively expensive as suggested and would not need to be in the high spectrum end of the accommodation market. For example, it could not be suggested that other forms of staff accommodation such as for hotel/bar workers etc would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, the essential need for workers on site should not solely be down to financial considerations. For instance, animal husbandry might require workers to be close to animals at all times day and night whereas the workers in association with the applicants potato business are not required to be on site at all times. The need for workers to be on site at all times is therefore not essential. Under Policy SP1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011, outside the Built-up Area, planning permission will only be given for (among other things) development appropriate to the countryside and, where it meets an identified need. In this instance, it is the Department’s contention that insufficient evidence has been brought forward to clearly demonstrate an essential need for new accommodation and the proposal remains, therefore, contrary to Policies SP1 and NE7 of the Island Plan 2011. 3. It is accepted that the proposed new units would be an improvement of the existing units in terms of design and appearance, however, the siting of the new units does raise an area of concern regarding the extension of the built form of the overall farm complex. Although the new line of units would not be readily visible from outside of the site, it would still encroach beyond the existing line of buildings / sheds and, given the presumption against the development, this is not considered to be an appropriate solution to the siting of the structures and would be detrimental to the character of the area. The proposal aims to perpetuate residential development within an area of open countryside and this is considered to be likely to have an adverse impact on the character of the area which is not considered to be residential in nature. 4. Under the newly adopted plan, Policy LWM2 states that: ‘applicants are required to submit sufficient information regarding the means of sewage disposal to allow a proper assessment of the proposals. Where this information is not provided, the application will be refused.’ The intention of the proposal is connect the new units to a new tight-tank as the public sewer connection is several hundred metres away. This may be a possibility, however, exceptional justification was not submitted with the proposal to demonstrate that connection to mains drains was not feasible or enough information to accurately assess the drainage proposals. Consequently, the proposed drainage formed an additional reason for refusal. | 
gov.je