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

Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, St. Lawrence - variation of condition of planning permit P/2006/1918

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 6 April 2010 regarding: Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, St. Lawrence - variation of condition of planning permit P/2006/1918.

Decision Reference:   MD-PE-2010 - 0045

Application Number:  RC/2009/1226

Decision Summary Title :

Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, , St. Lawrence, ,

Date of Decision Summary:

24th March 2010

Decision Summary Author:

Peter Le Gresley

Decision Summary:

Public or Exempt?

Public

Type of Report:

Oral or Written?

Written

Person Giving

Oral Report:

n/a

Written Report

Title :

WR - Blampied Farm, St L - PLeG

Date of Written Report:

06/04/10

Written Report Author:

Peter Le Gresley

Written Report :

Public or Exempt?

Public

Subject:  Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, , St. Lawrence, ,  

Variation of condition 1 to allow permanent vehicular access through fields 4 and 34 from permit P/2006/1918.

Decision(s):

The Minister decided to approve the revised new entrance to Blampied Farm.

Reason(s) for Decision:

The application is approved because the Minister has taken into account all of the material considerations which are relevant in this case.  In particular, the Minister balanced the issues raised by policy C6 of the 2002 Island Plan and the presumption against development in the Countryside Zone.  He also considered the objections received and the comments of the Parish of St. John.  However, the Minister considered that the lack of a suitable access to the redeveloped properties at Blampied Farm (given that the existing access is so narrow in parts) was an important factor.  He also considered the previous decision of the Planning Applications Panel was difficult to defend, owing to a procedural irregularity.  Finally, the Minister took into account that the applicant had recently narrowed the existing track and had laid grass along it, to give it a more rural character.  Balancing all the issues, the Minister considered that the presumption against development in the Countryside Zone could be set aside in this instance.

Resource Implications:

None

Action required:

Issue Permit, notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties

Signature:

PLeg / PT Initials

Position:

Minister for Planning and Environment

Date Signed:

Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, St. Lawrence - variation of condition of planning permit P/2006/1918

Planning and Environment Department

Report  

Application Number

RC/2009/1226

 

Site Address

Fields 4, 33 & 34, Blampied Farm, La Rue Ville es Gazeaux, St. Lawrence.

 

 

Applicant

Mr & Mrs G Boxall

 

 

Description

Variation of condition 1 to allow permanent vehicular access through fields 4 and 34 from permit P/2006/1918.

 

 

Type

Remove/Vary Condition Application

 

 

Date Validated

23/06/2009

 

 

Zones

Countryside Zone, Water Pollution Safeguard Area, PSSI

 

 

Policies

G2 –General Development Considerations

C6 – Countryside Zone

C13 – Safeguarding Farmland

 

 

Reason for Referral

Royal Court Appeal pending. Matter referred back to Minister on advice of Department after considering the appellant’s case.

 

Summary/

Conclusion

Following consideration of the appellant’s case at Appeal, it is the view of the Department that the Planning Applications Panel’s refusal is not sustainable and that the Minister should allow the variation of condition 1 to allow permanent access.

 

 

Officer

Recommendation

APPROVE variation of condition 1 of permission P/2006/1918

 

Site Description

Isolated group of buildings directly to the west of Handois reservoir.

 

 

Relevant Planning History

The redevelopment of this building group was permitted in 2005. Vehicular access existed via an existing track to the south. 

Subsequent to permission being granted, for the redevelopment of the group, access was considered under a separate application.  Permission was granted in 2006 to allow temporary access to the site across fields from the north.  This permission was limited for construction purposes and was conditioned to cease when the construction works were substantially complete

 

 

Existing use of Land/Buildings

Residential development following refurbishment, extension and conversion of existing buildings.

 

 

Proposed use of Land/Buildings

To allow the permanent use of a track for vehicular access, having previously conditioned that the access be used only for construction vehicles during the development.

 

 

Consultations

LC & ADS and HET have no objections. 

The Connetable of St. John objected to the access coming out onto La Rue de la Scelletterie at the Panel’s public meeting in October 2009.

 

 

Summary of Representations

There was one letter of objection to the application, relating to visibility, loss of amenity (to rear garden) and harm to the character of the area.  There were also comments made regarding the historical and future use of this land.

 

 

Planning Issues

This is a complex matter and touches on a number of policies.  The normal policy stance on such matters would be to refuse consent, based on a presumption against development in the Countryside Zone and a loss of farmland.  The property is, after all, already served by a vehicular access from the south.  However, in this case, particular circumstances exist.  The appellants maintain that there has always been in existence an access of sorts along this route.  The existing track to the south is plainly unsuitable for any vehicle larger than a small van and there is no suitable access for delivery or emergency vehicles. 

Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that the Panel’s decision in October 2009 was fatally flawed because of the manner in which the matter was determined.  The Connetable of St. John (himself a member of the Panel) addressed the Panel without first withdrawing from the Panel table.  Although the Connetable made it clear that he was taking no part in the decision, the appearance to the applicant was that a member of the Panel has addressed it on the application.  This gave an appearance of partiality, which the department has been unable to defend in the subsequent Royal Court Appeal. 

Given this, and the marginality of the original decision, it is recommended that the Minister overturns the Panel’s decision and allows the permanent access to be retained.

 

 

Officer

Recommendation

APPROVE variation of condition 1 of permission P/2006/1918

 

 

Background Papers

1:2500 Location Plan

 

 

 

Endorsed by:

 

Date:

 

 

 

Back to top
rating button