Holme Grown, Fauvic Nurseries, La Rue au Long, Grouville: Planning Application: 'Calling-in' for Determination by Minister

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 20 April 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0036			Application Number: P/2009/0647 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Holme Grown Fauvic Nurseries, La Rue Au Long, Grouville		Date of Decision Summary:		16 April 2012
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	P/2009/0647		Date of Written Report:		12 April 2012
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , Holme Grown Fauvic Nurseries, La Rue Au Long, Grouville RETROSPECTIVE: Create Garden Centre
Decision(s): In accordance with the Code of Conduct for the Minister of Planning and Environment in the determination of planning applications and pre-application advice (MD-PE-2011-0120) the Minister confirmed he is calling-in this application for his determination.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister has reviewed the planning history of the site and considers this application potentially raises difficult policy issues. As such, this proposal constitutes a strategically important application. The Minister has visited the site, when he also met with the applicant. Officers were present at the site visit and meeting. The purpose of the visit was to understand matters of fact - no lobbying occurred the Minister did not provide any advice to the applicant and did not pre-empt any decision.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Holme Grown, Fauvic Nurseries, La Rue au Long, Grouville: Planning Application: 'Calling-in' for Determination by Minister

Planning and Environment Department

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

(This is hidden text it will not print out. Use F11 to move to the next field. Shift -F11 to previous field.)Department of the Environment

Report for Ministerial Meeting

Application Number

P/2009/0647

Site Address	Holme Grown, Fauvic Nurseries, La Rue au Long, Grouville.

Applicant	Mr W Stanley Payn

Description	RETROSPECTIVE: Create garden centre

Type	Planning

Date Validated	24/03/2009

Zones	Green Zone

Policies	SP3 – Sequential Approach to Development SP5 – Economic Growth and Diversification SP6 – Reducing Dependence on the Private Car GD1 – General Development Considerations NE7 – Green Zone ER2 – Protection and Promotion of St Helier for Shopping ER8 – Large-Scale Non-Food Retailing ER10 – Retail Development Outside the Built-Up Area ER11 – Farm Shops ERE2 – Diversification of agriculture and the Rural Economy ERE4 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings ERE5 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings ERE7 – Derelict and Redundant Glasshouses

Summary/

Conclusion

The Minister will recall the Planning Panel originally considered this application when they met in April 2010. Since that time the situation has moved on - specifically, the Farm Shop has been approved, and the applicant has confirmed they cannot comply with the terms of the earlier Garden Centre resolution requiring off-site highways works necessary to improve the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long

The original ‘approval’ recommendation for the Garden Centre acknowledged that an ancillary element of plant sales is acceptable from a primary growing operation, and in earlier permissions (specifically P/2005/0044) retail sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment had been permitted at the (smaller) Farm Shop.

On the basis that the Farm Shop was originally recommended for refusal, the recommendation for the retrospective Garden Centre was, in part, based on ‘decanting’ the previously-approved sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment into the Garden Centre. The balance of the goods to be sold was then to be tightly controlled (in agreement with the applicant) to ensure they were ancillary to a garden centre, or bulky goods, which were not sold in St Helier town centre or other local centres.

This situation no longer exists, as the goods which were to be sold from the Garden Centre can now be sold from the much-enlarged Farm Shop. The new Farm Shop permit specifically now includes for the sale of locally produced plants and imported garden accessories and equipment.

Given that these goods are authorised in the Farm Shop, there is no compelling qualitative or quantitative need for the Garden Centre. As such, and given the location of the site within the Green Zone, the application fails to accord the retail strategy for the Island as set out in Policies NE7, ER2, ER8 and ER10 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Further at 2,100 sq m gross the proposal is too large to be considered a local or farm shop (which should be under 100 sq m).

Off-site highways

Following the original advice from T&TS Highways (2nd July 2009 – enclosed) the Department concur that there will be an intensification of the use of road junction of Rue au Long and the St Clements inner road. This was explicit in the previous recommendation to Panel, and their resolution.

The applicant has confirmed that they cannot deliver the improvements, as it involves an unwilling third party owner. Without the improvements to the highways network the Department remain of the view that this increase in retail floorspace is unacceptable on the basis of highway safety. This is situation is compounded by the approval of the Farm Shop.

It is the responsibility of the applicant to mitigate impacts caused by their private developments. In this instance the Department acknowledge the relevant third party is not willing to commit, but this is not a problem for the States to resolve, neither does it mean the issue can be ignored.

As the highways improvements cannot be delivered the proposal is contrary to Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development will not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation and safety, particularly in association with other committed developments (i.e. the Farm Shop)

(Worthwhile, when there is a conflicting balance of considerations, to play devil`s advocate, then give reasons for reaching recommendation.)

Officer

Recommendation

REFUSE

Introduction

This Report considers application reference P/2009/0647, being the retrospective proposal to create a garden centre at Holme Grown, Grouville.

Before dealing with the specifics of this proposal, it is prudent to bring the Minister up-to-date regarding the wider situation at Holme Grown, following the consideration of both P/2009/0647 (the garden centre) and P/2009/0267 being an extension to the farm shop, at the Panel meeting of 15 April 2010.

To briefly recap:

P/2009/0267 - Extend and reconfigure the Farm Shop.

The Panel meeting in April 2010 refused the application, in accordance with the recommendation of the Department. In coming to this recommendation the Department were supporting of the principle of the farm shop, but were concerned with the scale of the outlet, and the proportion of the non-local goods being sold, meaning the outlet had moved away from being a “Farm Shop” and was now a “Shop on a Farm”.

The recommendation was therefore made on the basis of the impact on St Helier town centre; the scale and nature of the goods to be sold and traffic safety at the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long.

Following the issue of the decision notice, the applicant submitted an appeal against the refusal to the Royal Court. Following consideration of the grounds of appeal, the Department issued, on 21 January 2011, a decision notice approving the development

The approval of the Farm Shop was based, in brief, on a Department acceptance of the case made by the applicant that an earlier permit had been part implemented (P/2005/1178). Therefore the outstanding matters for consideration were not the scale but (primarily) the mix of goods to be sold. The relevant conditions are recorded on the copy of the permit enclosed with the Panel Papers.

In relation to the traffic safety issue, in granting permission for the Farm Shop the Department considered that the condition requiring the off-site junction works on the earlier P/2005/1178 permit was unenforceable as the land was not in the ownership of the applicant, and as such the Department were not in a position to require the works to be delivered.

It is this issue that we have been seeking to avoid repeating in the current Garden Centre proposals.

The situation is entirely different for the present Garden Centre proposal, where the determination is not constrained by previous decisions, and so where the issues (including the principle of the development, and the highway situation) fall to be considered afresh.

Back in April 2010 the Panel also considered the subject proposal for a retrospective Garden Centre, again, to briefly recap:

P/2009/0647 – RETROSPECTIVE Create Garden Centre

This application sought retrospective permission for a garden centre, in the glasshouses to the north of the car park at Holme Grown.

At the time of the determination in April 2010 the Department recommended that permission was granted, subject to the applicant submitting to the Department, within 30 days, revised plans to show the necessary visibility splays to the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long, to the satisfaction of T&TS Highways, to be controlled by condition thereafter.

The assessment of the retrospective garden centre application included an acknowledgement that an ancillary element of plant sales is acceptable from a primary growing operation, and in earlier permissions (specifically P/2005/0044) retail sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment had previously been permitted at the Farm Shop.

On the basis that the Farm Shop was recommended for refusal, the recommendation for the retrospective Garden Centre was, in part, based on ‘decanting’ the acceptable sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment into the Garden Centre. The balance of the goods to be sold was then to be tightly controlled (in agreement with the applicant) to ensure they were ancillary to a garden centre, or bulky goods, which were not sold in St Helier town centre or other local centres.

In April 2010 the Panel endorsed the Department recommendation, requiring the submission of revised plans to show the necessary visibility splays to the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long, to the satisfaction of T&TS Highways.

This has not occurred and by letter of 1st June 2010 (from Hanson Renouf) the applicant has confirmed that it cannot happen, because the necessary land is not within their ownership and the required Third Party will not provide the necessary written agreement.

Given the above, the Department clearly cannot issue a positive determination, as this would be outside the terms of the April 2010 Panel resolution. Further, since the April 2010 determination, the situation has materially altered (with the approval of the Farm Shop application) therefore the circumstances surrounding the original recommendation have altered, and the application needs to be comprehensively revisited – being the balance of this Report.

Site Description	The subject property is the Holme Grown development, off La Rue au Long, Fauvic, Grouville. This application relates to the garden centre on the north side of the car park which has developed over the period since 2007 in a former glasshouse.

Relevant Planning History	This is the first application for a garden centre on this element of the site. This is a retrospective application requested by the Department following the unauthorised commencement of the use. The requirement for the retrospective application followed an enquiry in March 2007, when the applicant wrote to the Department asking if permission was required for a check-out to be installed within the existing glasshouse to the north of the car park (ie. the subject site) to serve “nursery stock products, such as plants, shrubs, compost, peat etc” The Department responded by letter of 26 March 2007 confirming that this was acceptable, provided it was used in association with the remainder of the site and that the conditions of P/2005/1178 still apply. On this basis the sales element would be ancillary to the primary growing function and would not have required permission. Following incidental visits to the garden centre, in February 2009 the Department became aware that the range of goods being sold went way beyond those specified in the 21 March 2007 letter from the applicant (to include homewares, DIY goods, electrical / homewares) and indeed well beyond what could be considered within the scope of a ‘garden centre’. As such the operation could not be considered as ancillary to the primary growing function and a wider operation was now being undertaken – hence the request for this application. It should be noted that since February 2009 the range of goods has been restricted to those which can more reasonably be considered as legitimate garden-related products.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Garden centre (unauthorised)

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Garden centre of about 2,100 sq m (22,600 sq ft) comprising one external ‘bay’ and three internal bays.

Consultations	[responses from original consultation] T&TS Highways in their comments of 2 July 2009 confirm that there remains a requirement for improving the visibility at the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long. Planning Policy and Projects in their comments of February 2010 confirm that Holme Grown already includes a large retail outlet where the sale of plants and gardening equipment and accessories is permitted. To permit further sales would be to erode the already compromised policies of the Island Plan and as such the proposal should be rejected. All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	[responses from original consultation] Two letters of representation have been received, which both object to the proposal. The letters raise concerns about the continued non-compliance with planning controls, and question whether the use of a glasshouse for retailing is safe. Further concerns are raised about the lack of parity with other garden centre operations, including the restrictions on the nature of sales and extent of sales areas. Letters of response from the applicant are enclosed the Panel papers, primarily dealing with issues raised by the Department during the progression of the application. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations (What are the presumptions) The Jersey Island Plan 2011 was adopted in June 2011 and as such the application now requires assessment against its policies. Given that the application was submitted well in advance of the adoption of the 2011 Plan, and has indeed been considered (in April 2010) against the content of the 2002 Plan, a comparative assessment between the 2002 and 2011 Policies is also provided (in italics). The key policies which are particularly relevant to this application are set out below, with a short assessment of whether the scheme is considered to comply. Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy – sets out that development will be concentrated in the Island’s Built-Up Area, as defined on the Proposals Map. This application is outside the Built-Up Area and within the Green Zone. Policy SP2 – Efficient Use of Resources – sets out that development should make the most efficient and effective use of land, energy, water resources and buildings to help deliver a more sustainable form and patters of sustainable development. In particular the proposed spatial distribution of new development should be designed to limit carbon emissions. This proposal is not well located for travel by any mode other than the private car, as it is outside any significant settlement. Further, the east of the Island is already well served by garden centres / nurseries (i.e. Belle Fleur and Ransoms) so geographic coverage does not significantly reduce the need to travel significantly within the Island. SP5 – Economic Growth and Diversification - A high priority is given to maintaining and diversifying the economy, by protecting employment land for employment uses, and providing new opportunities for employment use. This application does not deliver any strategic diversification of the economy and is a local operation. Policy SP6 – Reducing Dependence on the Car – applications for housing must be able to demonstrate that they will reduce dependence on the private car by providing for more environmentally friendly modes of transport. As with SP2 (above) This proposal is not well located for travel by any mode other than the private car, as it is outside any significant settlement. Further, the east of the Island is already well served by garden centres / nurseries (Belle Fleur and Ransoms) so geographic coverage does not significantly reduce the need to travel significantly within the Island. Policy G1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 considers “Sustainable Development” and it contains provisions which broadly align with SP1, SP3 and SP5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Policy GD1 - General Development Considerations - states that development proposals will not be permitted unless the proposal contributes towards a more sustainable form and pattern of development, does not seriously harm the natural and historic environment, does not seriously harm the amenities of neighbouring uses, contributes or does not detract from the Island’s economy, contributes to reducing the dependence on the car, and is of a high quality of design. These matters are reviewed in the later sections of this Report. The provisions of GD1 in the Jersey Island Plan 2011 are in accordance with the content of Policy G2 “General Development Considerations” in the Jersey Island Plan 2002. Policy GD8 - Percentage for Art - states that the Minister will encourage the contribution of a percentage of design and development costs to the provision of public art. This repeats the provisions of Policy BE12 from the Jersey Island Plan 2002. No Percentage for Art submission has been received. NE7 – Green Zone - This policy establishes a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. However, the policy then sets out a series of possible exceptions which may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the area. The ‘possible exceptions’ include: 6. conversions of existing buildings to appropriate and non- intrusive commercial uses in accordance with ERE4 - 'Change of Use And/Or Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings' and ERE5 - 'Change of Use And/Or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings'; 8. suitable proposals for diversification in the agriculture industry in accordance with policy ERE2 - 'Diversification Of Agriculture And The Rural Economy'; The policy also includes that,” large scale developments will be not be permitted, unless they are proven to be in the Island interest.” The equivalent policy in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 would be C6, where the same general provisions apply. The proposal is outside the general terms of NE7, and the assessment against the other referenced policies within NE7 is considered later in this Report. ER2 – Protection and Promotion of St Helier for Shopping - This establishes the objective of protecting and promoting the St Helier as the main retail centre of the island. Proposals for new retail development outside the core retail area will not be permitted except where they accord with Policy ER3 “Protection and Promotion of Local Shopping Centres”, Policy ER4 “Development of Local Shops” and Policy ER7 “Large Scale Food Retailing”. This framework reflects the general provisions of Policy IC13 from the Jersey Island Plan 2002. ER8 – Large-Scale Non-Food Retailing - Proposals for large-scale non-food retailing will only be permitted where it will not cause detriment to the vitality or viability of St Helier Town Centre, is accessible by a choice of means of transport, provides adequate servicing and deliveries, and waste facilities. Applications must be accompanied by evidence of retail impact to show the proposals would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre, to include the quantitative and qualitative need and the sequential approach from Policy SP3. This policy expands on the framework in the Jersey Island Plan 2002, and is explicit in relation to the necessary information which should accompany such proposals. ER10 – Retail Development Outside the Built-Up Area - This policy establishes a presumption against new retail development outside the Built Up Area, except for in exceptional circumstances – with the maximum size normally being 100 sq m. ER11 – Farm Shops - Such proposals will be permitted where the enterprise is ancillary to an existing related economic activity, and accords with ER2 and ER3, and where the development is not more than 100 sq m. Win the 2002 Island Plan the provisions of ER10 and ER11 are set out in IC18 and IC20, with the exception of the 100 sq m size threshold. ERE2 – Diversification of Agriculture and the Rural Economy - Diversification (such as organic production, product processing or environmental management) are supported, where they support a viable rural economy. The equivalent policy in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 is C15 ERE4 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings - The proposal is not in a traditional farm building, and so does not require assessment against this policy ERE5 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings - There is a presumption against the conversion of such buildings, unless the redundancy to the unit and to the agricultural industry as a whole has been proven. The, the first consideration would be for alternative economic uses, such as light industry or warehousing. No assessment against these policy requirements has been submitted. The policy framework has the same general requirements as C18 in the Jersey Island Plan 2002. ERE7 – Derelict and Redundant Glasshouses - There is a presumption against the redevelopment of redundant and derelict glasshouses for other uses. Where they are surplus to the requirements of the user they should be advertised for use within the industry. No assessment against these policy requirements have been submitted. Policy C20 of the 2002 Plan considered the same issue, with a generally comparable policy framework. TT3 – Cycle Routes - Applications for large new developments, such as shopping, in the Eastern Cycle Route network will be assessed to determine their potential to contribute towards the further development of the Eastern Cycle Route network and may be required to contribute directly through the provision of a section of cycle path, or to enter into an agreement to make an appropriate financial contribution to the development or enhancement of the network. No contribution to the Eastern Cycle Network has been made This is a new policy in the 2011 Plan. In relation to the Green Zone policy framework, the proposal falls outside the provisions of ERE4, 5 and 7 as the site is not a traditional farm building, and no demonstration of redundancy has been made. Further, the proposal has not been submitted on the basis of the diversification of agriculture. Additionally, as a Farm Shop, or other retail use outside the Built-Up Area, the proposal is considerably over the indicated 100 sq m threshold (the garden Centre development actually extends to 2,100 sq m gross). Given that the range of goods to be traded from the Garden Centre are now approved for sale at the Farm Shop there is not considered to be any quantitative or qualitative need for additional retail floorspace, and as such the proposal fails to comply with ER2 and ER8 as an inappropriate non-food out of town retail development. Land Use Implications The application proposes the (retrospective) introduction of a garden centre retail outlet on a site within the Green Zone. The outlet would trade in both produce propagated on the wider glasshouse site, and other ‘garden centre’ products, including bulky goods. Size, Scale & Siting The area of the application seeks retail floorspace of about 2,100 sq m. Approximately one-third of this space is external. Design & Use of Materials n/a Impact on Neighbours The surrounding complex is generally in the ownership of the applicant and there are no direct impacts on neighbours. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The consultation response from T&TS Highways identifies the continued need for off-site highway works to the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long. As was set out in the “Introduction” section of this Report, the applicant has confirmed that they cannot provide the specified improvements, as the required land is outside their control, and the third party is not willing to provide the necessary agreement. The applicant has now set out their view that the States have the ability to control the junction under the Roads Administration Law 1960. This issue has been discussed with T&TS Highways, who have confirmed that the highway authority can only carry out work with the consent of the relevant landowner. The Law does not include the ability for the States to carry out the work, and therefore the Law cannot realistically be used to force an improvement at the relevant junction. Irrespective of the provisions in the Road Administration Law 1960, it is a fundamental requirement of the planning system that an applicant must take responsibility for the impacts of their own proposals. The States are not in a position to mitigate the impacts of private development projects. The applicant has, to some extent, already acknowledged this at the approved redevelopment of Fauvic Farm (P/2010/1102) where the third party applicant needed consent of the Holme Grown owner to deliver the visibility splays for the revised Fauvic Farm entrance. The Holme Grown owner then counter-signed the application forms with the relevant land being included in the site-edged-red (so enabling planning conditions to be enforced). If the subject applicant really believed it was the responsibility of the States to improve highways junctions to facilitate private development projects, then surely they would not have counter-signed the Fauvic Farm application. The only difference in circumstances is that in this application, the applicant seems to be dealing with an unwilling third party, otherwise, Fauvic Farm context confirms it is the responsibility of the applicant to facilitate an acceptable scheme with the relevant owners. It is further material that the original T&TS Highways objection was to both the Farm Shop and the retrospective Garden Centre. Given that the Farm Shop is now approved (primarily on the basis of the content of the P/2005/1178 permission) and given the increase in traffic from the committed Farm Shop scheme the need for visibility improvements is now even more pressing. Foul Sewage Disposal To the foul sewer Landscaping issues No landscape works are proposed. Other Material Considerations No offer has been made in relation to Percentage for Art or the Eastern Cycle Route

Officer Recommendation	The situation has clearly moved on since the April 2010 determinations, specifically, the Farm Shop has been approved, and the applicant has confirmed they cannot comply with the terms of the Panel resolution relating to the off-site highways works necessary to improve the junction. The implications of both these matters is now reviewed. Approval of Farm Shop The original recommendation for the Garden Centre acknowledged that an ancillary element of plant sales is acceptable from a primary growing operation, and in earlier permissions (specifically P/2005/0044) retail sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment had been permitted at the (smaller) Farm Shop. On the basis that the Farm Shop was recommended for refusal, the previous recommendation to approve the retrospective Garden Centre was, in part, based on ‘decanting’ the acceptable sales of plants / flowers, and gardening accessories / equipment into the Garden Centre. The balance of the goods to be sold was then to be tightly controlled (in agreement with the applicant) to ensure they were ancillary to a garden centre, or bulky goods, which were not sold in St Helier town centre or other local centres. This situation no longer exists, as the goods which were to be sold from the Garden Centre can now be sold from the Farm Shop. The new Farm Shop permit includes for the sale of locally produced plants and imported garden accessories and equipment. Given that these goods are now authorised in the Farm Shop, there is no compelling qualitative or quantitative need for the Garden Centre. As such the application fails to accord the retail strategy for the Island as set out in Policies NE7, ER2, ER8 and ER10 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Further at 2,100 sq m gross the proposal is too large to be considered a local or farm shop, which should be under 100 sq m. Off-site highways Following the original advice from T&TS Highways (2nd July 2009 – enclosed) the Department concur that there will be an intensification of the use of road junction of Rue au Long and the St Clements inner road. Without the improvements to the highways network the Department are of the view that this increase in retail floorspace is unacceptable on the basis of highway safety. This is situation is compounded by the approval of the Farm Shop. It is the responsibility of the applicant to mitigate impacts caused by their developments and the applicant has confirmed that this cannot be achieved. In this instance the Department acknowledge the relevant third party is not willing to commit, but this is not a problem for the States to resolve, neither does it mean the issue can be ignored. As the highways improvements cannot be delivered the proposal is contrary to Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development will not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation and safety. Other matters The development is outside the Built-Up Area, and only accessible by the private car. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies SP1, SP2, SP6 and GD1. There is no Percentage for Art offer, contrary to Policy GD8, neither is there a contribution to the Eastern Cycle Network, contrary to Policy TT3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. The addition of the requirement to contribute to the Eastern Cycle Network is the only material change in the policy framework between the Jersey Island Plan 2002 and 2011 as relevant to this assessment. Applicants submissions In recent correspondence the applicant has confirmed their proposed breakdown of the space: 603.75 sq m (outside) for bulky goods and outside plants; 1152 sq m (inside) to be split 50% local and 50% other garden centre goods, by floor area; comprising; 576 sq m (Area A – inside east) local plants and non-local goods; 576 sq m (Area B – inside west) local plants and storage, and seasonal events (one month at Christmas, 2 weeks at Easter and 2 weeks at Halloween) 172.8 sq m (inside) for ancillary storage, office and till. Whilst this does go some way to understanding the structure of the proposed operation, the approach outlined by the applicant still fails to address the policy concerns. It is also noteworthy that the approach seems muddled, in that during the seasonal events, which at Christmas and Halloween coincide with periods where local plants are not available, we cannot see how the offered 50% local floorspace will be maintained. This approach aligns with the long-standing concerns in relation to the breakdown of floorspace on the balance of the Holme Grown site, where the control of such an issue by condition is difficult to enforce. For these reasons, this approach cannot be endorsed. Recommend REFUSE

Conditions/ Reasons	1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal is in accordance with the Island Spatial Strategy, and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy SP1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate how the proposal reduces dependence on the private car, and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies GD1, SP1, SP2 and SP6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have an unreasonable impact on the vitality and viability of St Helier town centre or the defined local centres and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies ER2 and ER8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by reference to the scale of the development and the nature of the goods to be sold, that the proposal is a local or farm shop and as such the proposal is contrary to Policies ER10 and ER11 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 5. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, by reference to the scale of the development and the nature of the goods to be sold, that the proposal is appropriate diversification of agriculture and the rural economy and as such the proposal is contrary to Policy ERE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 6. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation and safety, specifically with reference to the sub-standard visibility splays at the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long, and as such the proposals fails to accord with Policy GD1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 7. The applicant has failed to make an appropriate contribution to the development or enhancement of the Eastern Cycle Route Corridor, and as such the proposal fails to accord with Policy TT3 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. 8. The applicant has failed to make an appropriate provision for Percentage for Art and as such the proposal fails to accord with Policy GD8 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Enforcement The applicant shall be given a period of 3 months to cease the operation of the garden centre and return the site to its previous use as an agricultural glasshouse. It should be noted that the permit for the farm shop includes permission for the range of garden centre goods to be sold from the farm shop. Further, the applicant should note that planning permission is not required for the ancillary sale of plants which are grown on the premises.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Consultation responses, relevant correspondence with applicant, previous Panel Report and Minutes for Garden Centre and permit for Farm Shop.

Endorsed by:

Date: