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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (28.06.06) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Field 707, Rue de la Freminerie, St. Saviour.

Subject:	Field 707, La Rue de la Freminerie, St Saviour
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0148	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		MS/2005/2130
Written Report Title:	RETROSPECTIVE: Construct 3 No. movable pig arcs. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Maintain refusal of planning permission.
Reason(s) for decision: The Minister considered that the concerns of the Planning Panel of 22 February regarding the lack of justification for the structures, the potential for nuisance and harm to health and the location of the structures in the Countryside Zone were still relevant.
Action required: Issue decision letter.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 28.06.06

Field 707, Rue de la Freminerie, St. Saviour - maintain refusal of planning permission

Application Number: MS/2005/2130

Request for Reconsideration Report

Site Address	Field 707, La Rue de la Freminerie, St. Saviour.

Requested by	Mr. M A De Sousa Luis Alfonso Catering Limited	Agent	MS Planning

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Construct 3 No. movable pig arcs. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	REFUSED

Reasons	1. Inadequate justification for the new structures has been made, contrary to Policy C6, C15 and C16 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 2. They show a potential to result in a nuisance and health hazard to residential properties, contrary to Policy G2 item (x) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. 3. The location of the proposed structures would be harmful to the visual character of this countryside which is located in the Countryside Zone, contrary to Policy C6 of the 'Jersey Island Plan', 2002.

Determined by	Sub Committee Refusal

Date	24/02/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone

Policies	C6 (Countryside Zone) This zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. The Planning and Environment Committee recognises, however, that within this zone there are many buildings and established uses and that to preclude all forms of development would be unreasonable. Thus, the following types of development may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside: (iv) new development on an existing agricultural holding which is essential to the needs of agriculture in accordance with Policies C16 and C17; (v) suitable proposals for diversification in the agriculture industry in accordance with Policy C15; C15 (Diversification of Agriculture) The Planning and Environment Committee will support proposals for diversification in the agricultural industry, provided that the development: (i) is complementary to the agricultural operations on the holding; (ii) does not conflict with policies for the safeguarding of countryside character, nature conservation and the control of development in the countryside; (iii) does not adversely affect the best and most versatile agricultural land; C16 New Agricultural Buildings and Extensions There will be a presumption against proposals for new agricultural buildings and extensions to existing agricultural buildings unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning and Environment Committee that the proposed development: (i) is essential to the needs of agriculture; and (ii) cannot be met in existing buildings elsewhere. Where the Committee accepts the justification for new building, it shall: (i) be located within or adjacent to an existing group of buildings, unless it can be demonstrated that a more isolated location is essential to meet the needs of the holding; (ii) not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area; G2 (General Development Considerations) Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development: (x) will not have an unreasonable impact on public health, safety and the environment by virtue of noise, vibration, dust, light, odour, fumes, electro-magnetic fields or effluent;

Recommendation

The Department considers that other sites would be more suitable for this development.

However, the visual impact of the structures is now limited and is not harmful to the character or appearance of the area.

The arks have been in place for approximately 6 months and in that time the Environment Department has advised the applicant regarding the management of the site. The management of the site is now considered to be acceptable to the extent that the use is very unlikely to result in nuisance or pollution.

Notwithstanding this, the Department is mindful of the concerns of residents and the past management of the site. As a result, the approval should be for a temporary period (as suggested by the Environmental Health Officer) in which it can be demonstrated that the site can be managed competently and without causing a nuisance or pollution.

On submission of the further planning application, if it demonstrated that the site cannot be operated in an adequate manner, the arks could be removed.

Approve for a temporary period of 1 year subject to conditions.

Comments on Case	The use of this site for pig production has been highly contentious for a number of reasons. In part, the applicant’s failure to gain planning permission prior to the erection of the previous building and the current arks has made the issues surrounding the applications more complex but also a number of issues not directly related to the Planning Law, but often relating to the management of the site, has heightened concerns for statutory bodies, residents and their representatives. It is prudent to take into account all of the factors when coming to the decision to grant or refuse planning permission and specifically, in this case, the management of the site. The emphasis of this Request for Reconsideration from the agent relates to the merits of the three pig arks that are currently unauthorised and sited in Field 707. Impact on the appearance of the area It is considered that the pig arks (and the associated fencing) are detrimental to the appearance of the area when compared to the open state of the site that previously existed. However, the growth of hedging around the site, the trees within the site and the planting of vines across the site have reduced the visual impact of the three structures to a considerable degree. The visual impact will vary due to the rotation of the arks required by the Environment Department. However, due to the growth of vegetation on the site it is not to a degree where harm would be caused to the character or appearance of the countryside. In addition, a precedent for a pig ark has been set by the approval of application MS/2006/0592. This approval was for one ark to be rotated within Fields 103, 104, 108 and 109 on the north coast within the Green Zone, an area that has higher landscape value (less human intervention) than areas of the Countryside Zone within which Field 707 is located. On balance, it is unreasonable to maintain reason for refusal No. 3. Justification for the Structures The agent accepts that the applicant is not a bona fide farmer and therefore it is extremely difficult to justify the erection of small scale agricultural structures within Policy C15 and C16. These policies are not constructed with new entrants in mind but rather for existing farmers. It is therefore a balanced consideration between the Island Plan policies and the States approved Rural Economy Strategy that the agent states acknowledges the obvious “need for diversification in the rural economy”. In terms of the siting of the arks, the agent states that it is unrealistic to expect a site next to existing farm buildings to be available to his client, and also, that land for small holders is not readily available. This may be true to an extent however there are examples of small areas of land that may be suitable and it is unlikely that the applicant has investigated all the possible options. Notwithstanding this, if the structures do not harm the appearance of the area and no other issues are considered to warrant refusal then it would be unreasonable to deny planning consent on this issue alone. Potential Nuisance and Health Hazard Given the existence of residential properties and their bore holes in the area this is an extremely important issue and one that forms the basis of many of the concerns raised. For a development of this scale it is not considered that engineered drainage is required as was stated in the previous Officer Committee Report. It is not correct to assume, as the agent has, that the comments of Transport and Technical Services relating to the previous a scheme for an intensive unit significantly influenced the previous decision. The concern regarding nuisance and potential health hazards relates to the management of the site and the potential for waste to run off the site or be concentrated in a particular part of the site. Both scenarios could result in pollution or a health hazard. The Director of Environment states in his letter of the 22nd May 2006 that “the current regime is well managed and very unlikely to give rise to any off-site water pollution, particularly now that the site has good vegetative cover beyond the enclosures themselves”. In addition the Water Resources Section of the Environment Department has raised no objection. The Environmental Health Officer has taken a precautionary approach. Given that history of the site, its sloping topography and the proximity of residential properties this is reasonable and reflected in the current recommendation.

Recommendation	Approve for a temporary period of 1 year subject to conditions.

Conditions	The pig arks shall be rotated and managed in accordance with the Livestock Advisor’s comments dated 19/12/05. To prevent nuisance and pollution of the area in accordance with Policy G2 (x) of the Jersey Island Plan. The structures hereby approved shall be removed on or before [?]/07/07. Planning permission has been granted on the basis of the adequate management of the site. Should the management be deemed to be likely to result in nuisance or pollution, the Minister for Planning and Environment considers the retention of the structures for any longer period as harmful to the amenity of the area, contrary to Policy C6 and G2 (x) of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. No tree or hedging which is shown on drawing 17.499.05 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed without prior written approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment. To minimise the visual impact of the development and safeguard the appearance of the area in accordance with Policy C6 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Background Papers	1:2500 Site Plan Letter from agent dated 31st May 2006 Request for Reconsideration submission inclusive of 3 separate consultation responses from the Environment Department, T & TS consultation response and the Environmental Health Officer’s consultation response. Letter from Director of Environment dated 22/05/06 Letter of representation dated 22/05/06 Letter of representation dated 11/05/06 E-mail representation dated 09/05/06 E-mail representation dated 08/05/06 Letter of representation dated 17/05/06 Letter of representation dated 16/05/06 Letter of representation dated 18/05/06 Letter of representation dated 16/05/06 Letter of representation dated 11/05/06 Officer Committee Report dated 15/02/06 inclusive of previous letters of representation.

Endorsed by		Date