Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier: Planning Application (P/2015/1183): Appeal Decision

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 2 June 2016:

Decision Reference:    MD- PE- 2016 – 0078

Decision Summary Title:

Appeal Decision – P/2015/1183

Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier

Date of Decision Summary:

01 June 2016

Decision Summary Author:

Judicial Greffier

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title:

Report to the Minister for the Environment

Date of Written Report:

27 May 2016

Written Report Author:

D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject:

Appeal under Article 108 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 against a refusal to grant planning permission at Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier (P/2015/1183)

Decision:

The Minister allowed the appeal in full and granted planning permission to develop land under Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

In respect of the following development: “P/2015/1183: The construction of two stables, a tack room and a tractor store in the south-east corner of Field No. 1512A.”

To be carried out at Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier.

This permission is granted subject to compliance with the following conditions and approved plan(s):

  1. The development shall commence within five years of the decision date.

Reason: The development to which this permission relates will need to be reconsidered in light of any material change in circumstance. 

  1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, drawings, written details and documents which form part of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved.

Reason(s) for Decision:

The Minister agrees with the recommendations of the Inspector as detailed within his report dated 27 May 2016.

Resource Implications:-

None

Action required:

Request the Judicial Greffe to inform interested parties of the decision.

Signature:

Deputy S Luce

Position:

Minister for the Environment

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Hide report
Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier: Planning Application (P/2015/1183): Appeal Decision

Inspector’s Report – Appeal by Mr C J R Le Gros - Ref. P/2015/1183

PLANNING AND BUILDING (JERSEY) LAW 2002 (as amended)

 

Appeal under Article 108 against a decision made under Article 19 to refuse planning permission

 

REPORT TO THE MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

 

made under Article 115(5)

by D A Hainsworth LL.B(Hons) FRSA Solicitor

the inspector nominated under Article 113(2) from the list of persons appointed under Article 107

______________________________________________________

 

Appellant:

 

Mr C J R Le Gros

 

Application reference number and date:

 

P/2015/1183 dated 24 July 2015

 

Decision Notice date:

 

26 October 2015

 

Site address:

 

Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier

 

Development proposed:

 

The construction of two stables, a tack room and a tractor store in the south-east corner of Field No. 1512A.

 

Inspector’s site visit date:

 

10 May 2016

 

Hearing date:

 

12 May 2016

______________________________________________________

 

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal by the applicant against the refusal of planning permission for the development described above, under delegated powers and on review.
  2. The reasons given for the refusal of planning permission are as follows:

“1.   These stables are for personal recreational/hobby use (non-agricultural development) on an existing agricultural field, the principle of which is contrary to the provisions of Policy NE7, which presumes against the change of use of land to domestic curtilage. Furthermore, the proposed non-agricultural development on an existing agricultural field provides no justification to prove redundancy of the agricultural field to either the agricultural industry or the commercial industry and is therefore contrary to Paragraph 9 (a), Policy NE7 and Policy E1 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011 (Revised 2014).

2.   The proposal results in structures within an agricultural field without providing sufficient demonstrable environmental gains and without contribution to the repair and restoration of landscape character. The application is considered to result in an increased intensity of occupation and use, causing serious harm to the landscape character and is therefore considered contrary to the provisions of Paragraph 9 (b) of Policy NE7 and GD1 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011 (Revised 2014).

3.   The proposal is contrary to the Spatial Strategy of the Adopted Island Plan, which seeks to encourage development within the Built Up Area and/or within domestic curtilages in order to safeguard the agricultural land bank. The proposal would result in an unreasonable loss of agricultural land, without a proven redundancy case from the agricultural industry, resulting in serious harm to landscape character, contrary to Policies SP1, SP2, SP4, GD1, ERE1 and NE7 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011 (Revised 2014).”

The case for the appellant

  1. The appellant states that the field is not viable for commercial agricultural use, is only 0.7 vergée and has not been used as agricultural land for over 20 years. He states that the Department of the Environment have confirmed that “its loss would have no impact on commercial agricultural land”. He indicates that the vehicular access is unsuitable for modern agricultural machinery.
  2. The appellant maintains that the development will be typical of its kind and well screened by existing hedging and a wall, so that it will not be visible from the roadside. He states that it would be small scale, not harmful to the landscape and within the policy criteria that apply.

The case for the Department of the Environment

  1. The Department rely on the reasons given for refusing planning permission, which are set out in paragraph 2 above. They state that the development proposed is for a new domestic non-agricultural use on an existing field. They maintain that it would be an extension of a domestic curtilage, which would not support agriculture or allow for the future retention and safeguarding of agricultural land, and that the increased intensity of occupation and use would cause serious harm to the landscape character. The development would not be in accordance with the policies referred to in the reasons for refusal.

Representations made by the National Trust

  1. The Trust state they are concerned that in the future redundant buildings for equine use on agricultural land could be the subject of an application for residential use. They therefore suggest that a planning condition should be imposed, which would require the buildings to be removed if they become redundant.

Inspector’s assessments and conclusions

The main issue in the appeal

  1. The main issue in the appeal is the effect the proposed development would have on the character and appearance of the field and its surroundings, with particular reference to its effect on agriculture and landscape and to the application of the Island Plan policies relating to these matters.
The character and appearance of the site and its surroundings
  1. The field is next to the appellant’s farmhouse and outbuildings at Mont Cochon Farm. It is a grassed enclosure or paddock, closely associated with the farm buildings, which no longer shows any signs of having been used for an agricultural purpose. There is a small equestrian sand school in its northern part, which the Department indicated at the hearing would have been permitted development when it was constructed last year.
  2. There is a route for horse riders that connects the field with other fields belonging to the Farm. Vehicular access to the field is from Rue de Trachy, which is a one-way street frequently used extensively for parking; as a result, its available width can become restricted and vehicular movements into and out of the field can be difficult to execute.
  3. Planning permission has been granted for the conversion of outbuildings at the Farm to residential use and the works are in progress. The remaining outbuildings are unsuitable for equine use, because such activity would be harmful to the amenities of future residents and cause conflict within the domestic parking and circulation area.
  4. Although it is now in the Green Zone as a result of boundary alterations made by the 2011 Island Plan, the field is associated visually with the urban environment, having the farmhouse and other housing on its western and northern sides, some more buildings to the east and St Andrew’s Park on the opposite side of the road. The field is screened from view from the road by a high wall and a hedge.
The effect on agriculture
  1. The Department’s Environmental Land Control section have stated that the loss of the field would have no impact on commercial agricultural land, although they do not support the proposed development as it is not an essential development for an agricultural business. The appellant’s tenant farmer has forgone the option to rent the field from him, even though he is actively looking for more farmland. He attended the hearing to confirm that the field was of no agricultural use to him, since the soil was unsuitable, the difficulties of vehicular access prevented the use of modern farm equipment and the field was too small, though he did farm small fields where they were viable propositions.
  2. Policy ERE 1 safeguards agricultural land by establishing “a presumption against the permanent loss of good agricultural land for development or other purposes”. The evidence I have received indicates that the development proposed would not result in the loss of any “good” agricultural land, nor would it prevent the field being used again for agriculture in the future.
  3. Policy E1 states: “There will be a presumption against development which results in the loss of land for employment use as supported by the Strategic Policy SP 5 ‘Economic growth and diversification’”. This includes employment in agriculture. The policy allows for certain exceptions, the first of which is where “it is demonstrated that the site is inappropriate for any employment use to continue, having regard to market demand”. The field is not in employment use at present; it has not been for many years and there seems to be very little prospect of it providing agricultural employment in the future. The first exception applies in my opinion and, in the circumstances that arise in this appeal, the use of the field for equine purposes would be a reasonable diversification from agricultural use.
The effect on landscape
  1. The Department have in my view incorrectly categorised the proposed development as “the change of use of land to domestic curtilage” [against which there is a general presumption in Policy NE 7]. This is not what has been applied for. The fact that the development would be for private equine use and would be in a field next to the users’ living accommodation does not mean that the field or any part of it would be taken into the domestic curtilage or that the use of any part of the field would become residential. I also find the Department’s reference to “increased intensity of occupation and use” difficult to comprehend, since the development would be small-scale and the field already has a sand school, which can be used for equine purposes without a further planning permission. The field could in theory also be used for a variety of agricultural purposes.
  2. The objective stated in Policy NE 7 is to give the Green Zone “a high level of protection from development”. The reasoned justification for the policy, as set out in paragraph 2.121 of the Plan, states that it “sets a presumption but not an absolute moratorium against development within the Green Zone: the key test is the capacity of the site and its context to accommodate development without serious harm to landscape character”. It adds: “This is the starting point for the consideration of development proposals”.
  3. Accordingly, paragraph 12 of Policy NE 7 allows for an exception to be made for minor development. This is defined as “Development small in scale and incidental to the primary use of land and buildings, but only where it: a. is well-sited and designed, having regard to the relationship with existing buildings, landscape context, size, material, colour and form; and b. does not cause serious harm to landscape character”.
  4. There is no dispute that the development proposed is minor development for the purposes of the policy. The primary use of the field is currently related to the keeping and exercising of horses, to which the development would be incidental. The buildings would be sited in a corner of the field, where they would be screened from view and would be sufficiently far away from residential accommodation. They would have a low profile and be constructed with shiplap cladding and roof sheeting, which the Department acknowledge is a design similar to many small stables. As I have indicated in paragraphs 8 to 11 above, the field is not in an isolated location and the surroundings have urban characteristics. In the circumstances, I do not consider that this development will cause serious harm to landscape character. In my opinion, it will meet all the requirements of paragraph 12 of Policy NE 7.

Overall conclusion

  1. I have concluded that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the field and its surroundings and that it would not be in conflict with the Island Plan policies relating to agriculture and landscape. As respects the Plan’s strategic, general development and other policies, it seems to me that the proposed development can be encouraged, on the basis that it will facilitate outdoor recreational activity in an accessible location without having an undue impact on the environment or on residential amenity.
  2. There are in my view insufficient reasons to withhold planning permission, subject to the conditions referred to below.

Planning conditions

  1. There was a discussion at the hearing as to the conditions that might be imposed if planning permission were granted. It is accepted that the usual conditions relating to the start of development and compliance with approved details should be applied. The Department decided not to seek a landscaping condition or the condition put forward by the National Trust; I agree, since the existing landscaping is sufficient and the National Trust’s condition is unnecessary, because the buildings would be unsuitable for residential conversion and planning permission for the conversion would be required in any event.
  2. It was left to me to consider whether commercial (i.e. livery) use of the stables should be precluded, because of the potential for additional traffic. I do not consider that this would be justified, since the stables will be in an accessible location and the volume of additional traffic would be small.

Inspector’s recommendations

  1. I recommend that in exercise of the powers contained in Article 116 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (as amended): -

(i) the appeal be allowed in full; and

(ii) planning permission be granted for development at Field No. 1512A, Rue de Trachy, St. Helier consisting of the construction of two stables, a tack room and a tractor store in the south-east corner of the field, in accordance with the application ref: P/2015/1183 dated 24 July 2015, subject to the following conditions: -

  1. The development shall commence within 5 years of the decision date.

Reason: Standard time limit to facilitate reconsideration of the development in the light of any material change in circumstances.

  1. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the plans, drawings, written details and documents which form part of this permission.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out and completed in accordance with the details approved.

 

Dated 27 May 2016

 

D.A.Hainsworth

Inspector

 

 

1.

Our sites
Back to top
rating button