PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
ENVIRONMENT DIVISION
PROPOSED SALE OF PARTS OF FIELD G.740
Public
Purpose of the Report
A request has been received to overturn a decision made by the Statutory Services Officer, Land Controls Section, to refuse to give consent to the purchase of parts of field 740 Grouville, under the provision of the Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Lease) (Jersey) Law, 1974.
Background
In January 2009, George Francis William Child-Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey, applied for Ministerial consent to sell parts of field G.740, one part to Justin Patrick Christie and Rebecca Jane Christie (28,000 sq ft) and a smaller portion to Trilogy Properties Limited (9,500 sq ft), under the provision of the Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) (Jersey) Law, 1974. (1974 Law)
Consent to the sales were refused by the Statutory Services Officer, under delegated powers, on the grounds that it was against established policy under the above Law to permit the sale of parts of fields as this could create areas of land too small to be viable for an agriculturalist to occupy, resulting in their permanent loss to agriculture.
The land in question was purchased in 1952 and is currently free of agricultural restrictions under the 1974 Law. Land which is not subject to the 1974 Law only becomes subject to the provisions of that Law on the transfer of ownership.
Discussion
It was stated in letter of 16th February 2009 from the Statutory Services Officer to Mr John Bisson, acting on behalf of Lord Jersey , that whilst consent to purchase parts of the field was refused, consent to purchase the whole field would be given. This would of course have been with the appropriate agricultural conditions attached.
The field is approximately 10 vergées of good, easily worked, agricultural land. The area outlined to be sold is approximately 2 vergées in total which is situated adjacent to the prospective purchaser’s properties
Point raised by Appleby
It was/is the intent to plant out the field as an orchard as would the areas to be sold and then infers that had the field already been planted out then consent would have been granted.
Response
We cannot make decisions on conjecture/suppositions. Indeed consent would have been granted for the sale of the whole field as originally stated.
Point raised by Appleby
Because the land is at present not being used by an agriculturalist it cannot be argued that the land will be saved from disappearing from agricultural use.
Response
The Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) (Jersey) Law, 1974 was promulgated to maintain an agricultural land bank for the use of the agricultural industry. The prevention of the erosion of good workable land available to the industry is the long term aim of the 1974 Law.
Point raised by Appleby
That land not being used for agricultural purposes can reasonably be held in different ownership.
Response
Notwithstanding that the field is not worked at present, it was worked until recently (aerial photos attached). It is the intention of the prospective purchasers to physically divide the areas, which would subsequently be permanently unavailable as part of the working area of the field.
It must also be noted that an area of the field was transferred to the Christies in 2006, to enable the development of a granite barn. The consent was issued as that part of the field straightened the boundary and was not worked.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Minister maintain refusal to consent to the 2 transactions and inform the applicants in writing with reasons for the decision, that it would lessen the commercial viability of the land for the long term needs of the agricultural industry.
Article 2 (3) of the 1974 Law.
Where the Minister refuses consent he shall furnish to the applicant a statement in writing of its reasons for the decision.
Written by: Statutory Service Officer
Approved by: Director of Environment
gov.je