Field 52 and Field 1566, Rue de la Golarde, St. Lawrence

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (10.11.07) to grant, in principle, planning permission for Field 52 and Field 1566, Rue de la Golarde, St. Lawrence.

Subject:	Minister for Planning and Environment’s determination of planning application to create new farm, including stable type animal infrastructure and orchard. Single storey, 2 bed dormer cottage on Field 1566.
Decision Reference:		Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Oral discussion following written report to Public Hearing.	Person Giving Report (if oral):
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		PP/2006/2397
Written Report Title:	Create new farm, including stable type animal infrastructure and orchard. Single storey, 2 bed dormer cottage on Field 1566. RE-ADVERTISED:Amended Description	Written report – Author:		Anthony Farman
Decision(s Planning permission in principle granted to construct stable type animal infrastructure in Field 1566 and form access across Field 53 and Field 1566. Dwelling approved in principle subject to the demonstration that the following tests can be met: That a minimum £40,000 gross margin for the business is reached That it is demonstrated that the margin can be maintained for 3 years by a sustainable business plan That a minimum of 50% of the threshold must be derived from sheep or other agricultural activities where best practice demonstrates need for a dwelling on the site of the farming operation. The dwelling will be no more than 120 sq mt and constructed of granite and of traditional design
Reason(s) for decision: To maintain the balance between providing an agricultural dwelling that is genuinely essential in accordance with Policy C17 and preventing other similar but non-essential developments that would harm the character of the countryside contrary to the provisions of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.
Action required: Inform applicant.
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision:

Field 52 and Field 1566, Rue de la Golarde, St. Lawrence - in principle permission granted

Planning and Environment Department

Report

Application Number

PP/2006/2397

Site Address	Field 52 &, Field 1566, La Rue de la Golarde, St. Lawrence.

Applicant	Miss J Riggall

Description	Create new farm, including stable type animal infrastructure and orchard. Single storey, 2 bed dormer cottage on Field 1566. RE-ADVERTISED:Amended Description

Type	Planning Principle

Date Validated	02/11/2006

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies	G2 –General Development Considerations C6 - Countryside Zone C17 -New Dwellings for Agricultural Workers NR2 - Foul Sewage Facilities

Reason for Referral	Conflicting policy objectives Level and degree of objection

Summary/

Conclusion

The use of the land for livestock and as an orchard does not require planning permission.

The applicant has made two previous applications for new farm holdings to produce lamb, eggs and apple juice both of which have not been successful due to the proposal to build a dwelling. The Department accepts that maintaining agricultural land is an important part of the stewardship of the countryside and in that context has no objection to the proposed livestock housing as this would be essential to the running of the holding, and in accordance with the RES strategy.

However, the Environment Department have concluded that the applicant does not meet the economic threshold of a bona fide agriculturist at which point a dwelling could be considered (after a period of 3 years).. The Environment Department have not confirmed that a dwelling is needed on this site or that it is essential to the proper function of the farm holding, and in addition a conclusive case has not been put forward as part of this planning application that a dwelling is essential as required by Policy C6 and C17. Therefore the dwelling is unacceptable in principle.

Officer

Recommendation

REFUSAL

Site Description	Open fields to the west of the Thistlegrove industrial site.

Relevant Planning History	None.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Agricultural

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Agricultural

Consultations	Env. Dept. (Land Controls & Agriculture Development Section) in their letter dated 09/01/06 state “To enact the current business plan to achieve “smallholder” status, animal housing is essential. Therefore the part of the application to erect stable type infrastructure is supported”. “The proposal to build a permanent agricultural dwelling prior to achieving bona fide status and demonstrating that the applicant can achieve in practice a viable and sustainable business, is contrary to the RES Agricultural Development Policy and therefore is not supported”. Env. Dept. (Env. Protection Officer) in their letter dated 10/01/06 state “nothing further to add to his [John Jackson] comments.” T&TS (Highways) in their letter dated 19/12/06 state “Though visibility is currently not a problem, it is recommended that it should be at least 10m from the adjacent property to the west to avoid visibility issues . . . The Department has no objection but would not recommend increase in use of this [La Grande Route de St. Laurent] junction.” Parish in their letter dated 17/01/07 state no objection. H&SS in their letter dated 06/11/06 make recommendations with regard to potential pollution and nuisance. H&SS in their letter dated 04/12/06 state no objection. All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	12 letters of representations (objection) concerning:  Principle of development in the countryside  Precedent for other developments  Lack of proven need for the dwelling  Drainage provision  unacceptable impact on neighbours by virtue of loss of privacy  out of keeping with character of the area Applicant’s response dated 03/01/07 stating that: “the very fact I am entering the industry with an additional existing income allows me security of a successful business where others may fail”. The possible accommodation was not acceptable due to the “lack of security of tenure [and it] not situated close enough to enable me to manage the welfare and safety of the animals”. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations C6 and C17 - Principle of the new dwelling The principle of a new agricultural dwelling within the Countryside Zone is set out within the Island Plan under Policy C6. It states: “applications for the development of new dwellings will not normally be permitted unless it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Committee, that the development is essential to meet agricultural needs and cannot reasonably be met within the built-up area or from the conversion/modification of an existing building”. The preamble to Policy C17 states: “It may sometimes be necessary, however, to develop buildings specifically as dwellings for agricultural workers. These applications will be judged on the basis of need and, before granting consent, the Planning & Environment Department will want to know if there is an alternative solution”. The key issues therefore are need and whether the dwelling is essential. The Rural Economy Strategy Group has stated that “Smallholders will not receive RES support for permanent new agricultural dwellings as these are considered non essential for part time or small scale business”. The RES Group state that the applicant does not meet the financial threshold for support of a dwelling but also that “There are small livestock businesses operating successfully in Jersey without the owners living on site”. Therefore the Environment Department have concluded that the proposed dwelling is not needed on this site or that it is essential to the proper function of the farm holding as required by Policy C6 and C17. The issue of whether the agricultural dwelling can reasonably be met within the built-up area or from the conversion/modification of an existing building is more complex. The applicant has had the opportunity to live near this site. The issue of animal welfare is not one that justifies the construction of a dwelling itself as is demonstrated by the aforementioned Environment Department comment. However, it is recognised that as a new entrant to the agricultural industry, the applicant does not have any existing farm buildings to convert or modify and the Department is not aware of any suitable land owned within the built-up area. In this context, if the need were demonstrated, it could be concluded that a dwelling could not be reasonably be provided within the built-up area or from the conversion/modification of an existing building. Land Use Implications The site remains in agricultural use albeit with the addition of buildings, including a residential unit, to serve the proposed holding. Size, Scale & Siting Given that this in an in-principle application no indication of scale has been given for the proposed development except that a cluster of buildings is proposed. Despite this, it is reasonable to assume that the livestock would be housed in agricultural structures of a similar scale to those found across the Island. Indeed, the adjacent field to the west has a number of chicken sheds and these are not considered to be harmful to the visual character of this part of the countryside. If similar structures are repeated to house the applicant’s chickens and sheep then this would not harm the appearance of the area in accordance with Policy C6. A dwelling, even of a small scale, is different in nature by virtue of it being permanent, its likelihood of being two storeys tall (even if a dormer bungalow) and its isolated position, over 100m from any other dwelling, which is relatively unusual. Most agricultural dwellings are part of historic farm groups or at least sited close to existing buildings as required by Policy C6 and Policy C17. Therefore, its siting is considered to be harmful to the character of the Countryside Zone contrary to policies C6 and C17. Design & Use of Materials These issues are not directly relevant to this in-principle application. However, the use of standard or temporary housing for livestock would not harm the visual character of the countryside. If a dwelling were to be constructed on this site its design, scale and use of materials should try to minimise the building’s visual impact and accord with the Minister for Planning and Environment’s Design Principles. Impact on Neighbours The site in Field 1566 is relatively isolated being over 100m from any other dwelling. Therefore, the proposal will not have an unreasonable impact through overbearing or overlooking to any neighbouring properties. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The Highway Authority for La Rue de la Golarde (Parish of St. Lawrence) has no objection and therefore, and despite the concerns of T&TS regarding the “obvious primary access . . . onto La Grande Route de St. Laurent” the access arrangements are acceptable in accordance with Policy G2. Foul Sewage Disposal It is proposed to connect the development to the foul sewer and the applicant has demonstrated that enquiries have been made to T&TS to provide a connection. If approval were considered, it should be on the basis of demonstrating that a connection to the foul sewer can be achieved. Landscaping issues The area is characterised by open fields with traditional boundaries between. At this in-principle stage landscaping details do not need to be submitted, however, if approval for the dwelling were to be considered, any application would need to demonstrate new planting to screen the development and thus reducing its impact of the countryside. Other Material Considerations
	None.
Officer Recommendation	REFUSAL

Conditions/ Reasons	1. The proposed dwelling is contrary to Policy C6 of the Island Plan 2002 which states that areas designated as Countryside Zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of development for whatever purpose. 2. The proposed dwelling is contrary to Policy C17 of the Island Plan 2002 which states that there will be a presumption against proposals for dwellings for agricultural workers in new and permanent buildings unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environment and Public Services Committee that the proposal is essential to the proper function of the farm. In this case there is no proven need for a dwelling to serve the holding.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Consultation responses Letter from applicant dated 03/01/06 including background letters of support. Letters of represenatation.

Endorsed by:

Date: