The site is the south eastern part of Field 400A on the eastern boundary of the Ville Au Veslet Farm holding, off Le Mont Isaac, in St Lawrence. The application seeks permission for the erection of a shed to store agricultural machinery. It is proposed to be constructed in vertical timber panels, with sliding doors. The shed is would measure about 18.6m by 7m, and 3.5m in height (so having a floorspace of 130 sq m) The case for the Request for Reconsideration is enclosed in full in, being the undated letter from BoisBois lawyers, received in the Department on 24 September 2008. In relation to the first reasons for refusal, the RFR has failed to consider that there is already a shed on the site which is presently being used to house agricultural machinery. This is the “general purpose” shed where the present agricultural storage use is being pushed out by the expansion of the applicant’s son’s storage requirements as a general building contractor. The Department have no objection to the agricultural storage use continuing within the general purpose shed. It is clear the ownership of the general purpose shed is within the family and the issue of which specific member it belongs to has previously been irrelevant (as the shed has previously been used by both the farm and the building contractor) and so is not a material consideration for the purposes of considering this RFR. The interlinked family relationship is also evidenced by the position established in the RFR when the applicant explains that the (part unauthorised) items being stored on the farm in Field 440A (ie. in the ownership of Mrs Amy) include building materials being stored for the construction of the new house on the site of the Mont Isaac commercial shed (ie. in the ownership of Mr Amy). With reference to the points made within the RFR regarding the existing unused commercial shed to the west of the house, on one hand, the applicant appears to desire more storage space, yet on the other hand also wishes to develop a storage site for residential purposes. Both are authorised by the Planning Department - we cannot enforce the implementation of the residential permission and it is for the applicant to decide (based on their complete circumstances, which may include the overall need for storage on the farm) how they wish to balance this equation. It is therefore evident that the need can be met on site – as it already is. However, the applicant (and family) have chosen to use the general purpose shed for commercial building storage, and are seeking to redevelop an existing commercial shed for housing. With reference to the second reason for refusal, the RFR seeks to demonstrate that the proposed site is not remote (“30 seconds by tractor”) and is not detrimental to the character and appearance of the Countryside Zone (as it can’t be seen from the east). This case is brief in its consideration of the policy requirements as the tests relate to the proximity to the existing group of buildings – from which the site is remote. It is a matter of fact that its location is as far from the existing farm buildings as is possible, and still remain within the site. In relation to the condition of the proposed site, this has already been degraded by the (part unauthorised) storage of materials, and possible other unauthorised engineering works (remodelling embankments) and certainly should not form a baseline in an attempt to justify a new shed. In relation to the final numbered points made in the RFR letter,: 1. The LC&ADS consultation response actually confirms the agricultural need has arisen by the general purpose store being used by the builders business (ie. as set out above). 2. The Department make recommendations based on the content of the Jersey Island Plan 2002, taking into account all material considerations. Within this framework, the Department have explained how the needs of the farm can be met on site. 3. For the avoidance of doubt, we can confirm that no representation in support was received from the Parish. Furthermore, the representation from the National Trust explicitly OBJECTED to the proposal – identifying the same issues as were used in the second reason for refusal. 4. As considered above in relation to point 3, the National Trust wrote 2 letters of objection to the original application. An additional letter of representation has been received specifically in relation to this RFR which also focuses on (a) the number of existing sheds and (2) the inappropriate siting of the shed within the sensitive rural location. 5. The particular financial circumstances of the Amy family are not a material planning consideration. |