La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, Grouville: Planning Application

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 13 October 2009 regarding La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, Grouville Planning Application.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0161		Application Number: P/2007/1315 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title:	La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, Grouville	Date of Decision Summary:		1 October 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Senior Planner	Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written	Person Giving Oral Report:
Written Report Title :	Request for Reconsideration Report P/2007/1315	Date of Written Report:		14 May 2009
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner	Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: , La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, , Grouville, , Demolish existing dwelling, outbuildings, glass houses and polythene tunnels and construct 3 No. dwellings with parking and associated landscaping. AMENDED PLANS. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION of refusal of planning permission for third dwelling as per Condition 1. of permit P/2007/1315.
Decision(s): The Minister for Planning and Environment considered the Request for Reconsideration at his public Ministerial Meeting of 29th May 2009, and concluded that he would not make a formal decision at the meeting, as he wished to give further consideration to a number of matters, including the pre-application advice given to the applicant, the design of the third unit, and the drainage issues. Since that meeting, the third unit has been redesigned to the satisfaction of the Department Architect and the drainage arrangements have been confirmed by T&TS Drainage. Additionally, the Minister received a further written up-date from the Director of Planning (17 September 2009) which includes clarification of the pre-application advice. Having considered the additional matters, the Minister resolved to accept the Request for Reconsideration, so removing the subject condition, and approving the third unit. The approval was to be subject to conditions regarding agricultural occupancy, controlling the size, and ensuring the property is constructed in granite with timber windows.
Reason(s) for Decision: Permission has been granted having taken into account the relevant policies of the approved Island Plan, together with other relevant policies and all other material considerations, including the consultations and representations received. It is considered that the grant of permission as a suitable exception is justified in this case having regard to all the circumstances of the case, as set out within the Request for Reconsideration Report of 14 May 2009 and the up-date from the Director of Planning of 17 September 2009
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Amend original permit as necessary. Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature:			Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:			Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed): 22 September

La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, Grouville: Planning Application

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Request for Reconsideration Report

Application Number

P/2007/1315

Site Address	La Hougue Bie Nurseries, La Hougue, Grouville.

Requested by	Mr. T. J. Binet

Applicant	Fairview Farm (2005) Ltd

Description	Demolish existing dwelling, outbuildings, glasshouses and polytunnels and construct 3 No. dwellings with parking and associated landscaping. AMENDED PLANS.

Type	Planning

Original Decision	Planning permission for 2 dwellings but condition that third unit (Unit 3) not approved.

Determined by	Planning Applications Panel

Date	30 October 2008

Zones	Countryside Zone Water Pollution Safeguard Area

Policies Recommendation	C6 (Countryside Zone C17 (New Agricultural Dwelling) APPROVE
Introduction	This request has been submitted in parallel with an appeal to the Royal Court, and relates to the Panel’s decision in granting permission for two dwellings on the above site, to refuse by condition the ‘third’ proposed dwelling (Unit no. 3). Unit 3 is a proposed agricultural dwelling for the applicant company Fairview Farm (2005) Ltd. The site has previously had the benefit of permission (granted in April ’02 to the previous owner) for an agricultural dwelling. The previous Officer Report dated 16 October 2008, together with the request for reconsideration letter from the applicant are enclosed.
Grounds of Appeal to Royal Court	In summary, the grounds of appeal to the Royal Court include the following: that the previous permission is still ‘live’ and the refusal purports to revoke this permission, which is unreasonable; that even if the previous permit is considered to have expired, the appellant had a legitimate expectation that proposed Unit 3 (the proposed agricultural dwelling) would be permitted having regard to the background circumstances; and that the proposed development of Unit 3 is in any event compliant with the relevant Island Plan policies relating to the Countryside Zone/new agricultural dwellings.

The Site	The site comprises a former nursery on 10 vergees of land and includes an existing bungalow (with no agricultural occupancy condition), plus glasshouses (now dilapidated), polytunnels, agricultural storage shed and other outbuildings, together with a 3 vergee field to the west. The nursery was previously owned and run by a Mr. G. P. Buesnel.

Policy Context	The relevant Island Plan policies are C6 (Countryside Zone) and C17 (New Agricultural Dwelling). These policies set out an overriding presumption against new development in the Countryside Zone but allow for agricultural dwellings subject to:- satisfactory demonstration of ‘essential’ agricultural need; and satisfactory demonstration that the required accommodation cannot reasonably be met within the built-up area or by conversion of an existing building.

Relevant Site History	The relevant site history is set out in the enclosed previous Officer Report and the applicant’s ‘request for reconsideration’ letter. A summary of the main points, together with further supplementary points and comments, is outlined below. Previous Permission for Agricultural Dwelling (April ’02) On 4 April 2002, the previous owner Mr. Buesnel received permission for an agricultural worker’s dwelling on the site (for occupation by his son who helped manage the unit). The permit included the following conditions: a standard agricultural occupancy condition; and a standard condition stating that, if the development did not commence within 3 years of the decision date, the permission shall cease to be valid (expiry date 4 April 2005). This permit was not implemented by Mr. Buesnel, and in late summer 2004 the site was put on the market (advertised as nursery complex with existing permit for agricultural dwelling). Pre-Application Enquiry (August ’04) In August 2004, Mr. Binet sought pre-application advice (then as a prospective purchaser of the site) regarding his plans for redevelopment of the site for agricultural purposes, to include a proposed new agricultural shed, staff accommodation block, replacement of the existing (unrestricted) bungalow with a new dwelling and also, taking into account the (then) live permit, the provision of a new agricultural dwelling for occupation by a Senior Manager of the (then) Jersey Royal P.M. Ltd Company. Positive advice was issued by the Department, albeit it was made clear that this advice was without prejudice and was subject to demonstration of agricultural need for the overall proposals. The site was acquired by Jersey Royal P. M. Ltd in late February 2005. The time of acquisition meant there was just over a month left before the extant permit for the farm dwelling expired. Further Pre-Application Enquiry (April ’05) Following the site acquisition Mr. Binet sought further pre-application advice (by letter dated 9 April 2005) on a revised agricultural proposal for the site which, amongst other things, again included a proposed 3 bedroom agricultural dwelling on the basis of the ‘existing’ permit, albeit stating that he wished to modify the siting and design to achieve an improved appearance. In parallel with the request for pre-application advice, the applicant had been taking other action to safeguard the ‘live’ permit (re. commencement of development issue) viz: a Building Bye-Laws application, in accordance with the previously approved plans, had been submitted and was approved on 23 March 2005; the applicant received a Building Bye-Laws ‘commencement card’ on 1 April 2005, which was the Friday before the permit was due to expire on the Monday; a trial hole to check ground conditions for the foundations was also dug on Friday 1 April ’05, in the presence of his structural engineer Thomas and Griffiths Ltd. Another point made by the applicant (and which he states will form part of his further Royal Court Appeal submission) is that, at the time of purchase of the site and thereafter, he spoke with the Director of Planning regarding his position vis a vis the existing permit, and the Director gave him a verbal assurance that, given the particular circumstances, the existing permit would be ‘honoured’. The applicant further contends that it was because of this advice, and also because he had already made it clear in writing that he ideally wished to modify the siting and design, that he did not consider it necessary or logical to pour the foundations. Because the work had not properly commenced at the time of the expiry of the permit (4 April ’05), the Case Officer, in responding to Mr. Binet’s pre-application enquiry of 9 April ’05 advised that, because he had ‘missed the deadline to substantially commence works, albeit by a short time,’ the permit for the agricultural dwelling was no longer valid, and that he would need to provide a fresh justification for the new ‘agricultural dwelling’ against Island Plan Policies C6 and C17. Following subsequent correspondence, the matter was put to the Planning Sub-Committee of the former EPSC on 29 June 2005. The Act of this meeting records that the Sub-Committee noted that the permit had expired and ‘advised that Mr. Binet should submit a detailed application providing justification for the proposal.’ Mr. Binet was advised that the lapsed permit would be taken into account as a ‘material consideration’ in assessing any future application. In all subsequent dealings/applications relating to this site, Mr. Binet has repeatedly referred to the ‘honouring’ and validity of the existing permit; the position taken by the Department has been as that recorded by the Sub-Committee Act of 29 June 2005. Application for Agricultural Redevelopment (April 2006) In April 2006, permission was sought to redevelop the site to provide an agricultural shed, 14 units of staff accommodation and two dwellings (one as a replacement for the existing ‘unrestricted’ dwelling and one for an agricultural dwelling). The application had the full support of Agriculture/the RES Group but prompted strong objections by local residents together with the Constable and Deputy of Grouville. Permission was refused on grounds relating to unacceptable scale of development/traffic implications on inadequate surrounding roads/and visual harm to the character of the area. This refusal was maintained by the Minister following a request for reconsideration, the Minister concluding that the environmental considerations outweighed the agricultural arguments. Application for Redevelopment for 3 houses (May 2007) Following on from the refusal of the agricultural proposal an application was submitted to redevelop the site for 3 houses, viz: one as a replacement of the existing unrestricted dwelling; one based on the ‘replacement’/removal of all other existing buildings, structures and glasshouses on the site to secure an overall environmental improvement; one as a farm dwelling to ‘replace’ the previous permit for an agricultural dwelling. Following concerns expressed by the Panel and Department about the scale of the proposed development, revised plans were submitted and the Department requested further details of the agricultural justification/need for the dwelling, including a required site-specific justification in the context of Policy C17. In response to this request the applicant referred to: his previous submitted information with the ‘agricultural’ application, explaining that the company, which is the largest agricultural enterprise in the Island, employs some 560 staff ranging from manual workers to senior managers and that suitable accommodation for senior managers is urgently required, especially with the redevelopment of other premises; that the company’s lease of a three-bed house for one of the senior managers had come to an end and was not renewable; with regard to the site-specific justification, in the context of Policy C17 (as to why it cannot be provided elsewhere), he submitted that no justification was required because there was a valid permit with assurances that it would be honoured. The Panel considered the application on 30 October 2007 and, in accordance with the Department’s recommendation, decided to approve two of the proposed units and to refuse Unit 3 (the agricultural dwelling) on the basis of insufficient site-specific justification. It is this decision which forms the subject of the current appeal.

Comments on Case	From a ‘legal’ viewpoint, it is clear that the previous permit has lapsed, because the development had not properly commenced within the specified time period. However, the background circumstances of the case, to include the applicant’s circumstances and position at the time the permit expired, are a material factor to be taken into account as part of any reconsideration of this case. There are planning arguments both for maintaining refusal and for approving this proposal, and these can be summarised as follows: Arguments for maintaining refusal that the previous permit has lapsed and the current proposal falls to be considered afresh. that the approved policies involve strict control over new residential development in the Countryside Zone, and require that applications for new ‘agricultural’ dwellings have to both demonstrate essential agricultural need and justify ‘need’ in any given location (and why such accommodation cannot reasonably be provided by conversion of an existing building or in the Built-Up Area). that no site-specific justification has yet been submitted. that the original permit for an agricultural dwelling on this site was granted on the basis of ‘need’ for the on-site running and management of the former nursery. that having now granted permission for two large houses on the site, with associated clearance of the existing buildings and structures, then subject to implementation of this permission the site has no longer anything to do with agriculture and hence, even if there is an acknowledged need for staff accommodation, why does it have to be in this particular location? Arguments for approval The arguments for approval are: that the applicant runs the largest agricultural enterprise on the Island and has a clear stated need for staff accommodation. that he acquired the site on the basis, amongst other things, that the site had the benefit of an ‘live’ permit for an agricultural dwelling. that in submitting his pre-application plans for an agricultural development on an existing agricultural site, he made clear at the outset his intention to redesign/re-site the approved agricultural dwelling as part of the scheme, and received quite positive support. that he was aware that the permit was about to expire, so took positive steps to safeguard the situation and keep it ‘live’ - by submission of the Bye-Laws application/approval and digging of trial holes. Moreover, at the time of purchase, he had been given a verbal assurance by the Director of Planning that, because of the circumstances and tight-timescale, the permit would be ‘honoured’, and on this basis did not consider it necessary to further expedite the proceedings, especially also because he had made it clear that he wished to modify the siting and design. that had it not been for the aforementioned circumstances, the previously approved agricultural dwelling could and would have been built and his agricultural staff could live in it anyway, in that the agricultural occupancy and other conditions attached to the original permit would be complied with.

Conclusion	Article 19 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 requires the Minister, in determining an application for planning permission, to take into account the Island Plan and ‘all material considerations’. The background circumstances of this case are one of those ‘material considerations’, and taking everything into account it is considered that the balance lies with granting permission for the proposed dwelling (‘Unit 3’) subject to the normal agricultural occupancy condition.