Field 243, St. John: Appeal against refusal to transfer part of field under Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Lease) (Jersey) Law, 1974

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 12 March 2012:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2012-0017
Decision Summary Title:		Appeal against Officer’s decision to refuse consent to sell part of field 243 St John		Date of Decision Summary:	20/02/2012
Decision Summary Author (Job Title):		Land Controls and Planning Officer		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?		Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	n/a
Written Report Title:		Proposed sale of part of field 243 St John		Date of Written Report:
Written Report Author (Job Title):		Land Controls and Planning Officer		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	public
Subject: Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Lease) (Jersey) Law, 1974: appeal to overturn refusal of consent to the transfer of part of field 243 St John.
Decision(s): The Minister considered an appeal to overturn the officer’s decision to refuse consent to the transfer of part of field 243 St John, under the 1974 Law. The Minister refused the application for the sale of part of field 243 St John.
Reason(s) for Decision: It is the policy of the land controls and agricultural developments section not to allow the splitting of agricultural fields where the application will affect the viability of the field
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Minister to instruct Land Controls and agricultural developments section to inform Mr Philip and Mrs Angela Stevenson that permission for sale of part of field 243 St John will not be permitted
Signature:			Position:
Date Signed:			Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):
Version:	V

Field 243, St. John: Appeal against refusal to transfer part of field under Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Lease) (Jersey) Law, 1974

Department of the Environment

Our Ref: SS/LT/4703

Title

Proposed Sale of part of Field 243 St John

Policy

The Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) (Jersey) Law, 1974

The Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) (Jersey) Law, 1974 was introduced to control the occupation and use of agricultural land and to ensure that a stable, viable agricultural land bank is retained for the farming industry. This particular issue was highlighted by Scrutiny and the farming industry during the preparation of the Rural Economy Strategy 2011 – 2015. However, various conditions can be imposed which permit use of agricultural land by non bone fide agriculturalists or smallholders under the 74 Law with the Minister’s consent, depending on the circumstances.

It is the policy of the land controls and agricultural developments section not to allow the splitting of agricultural fields though each application is viewed on a case by case basis. In certain circumstances where the application will not affect the viability of the field such as the straightening of field boundaries or where the land is not being worked then permission may be granted.

Background

Previous to the current application, the applicants applied to purchase a small area of field 243 approximately 0.2 vergee (see attached map – Consent 2002) and were granted consent in October 2002.

On 10th March 2011, Mrs Pamela M Hamon applied for Ministerial consent to sell the remaining part of field 243 St John (approximately 1.8 vergées) to Mr Philip and Mrs Angela Stevenson under the provision of the Agricultural Land (Control of Sales and Leases) (Jersey) Law, 1974 (The 74 Law). Consent was granted with the following conditions (see attached map - Consent March 2011).

(b) that field 243 St John is used for agricultural or horticultural purposes only; this excludes the grazing of equine animals without the written consent of the Planning and Environment Minister

A letter was subsequently received from Advocate Simon J Habin on the 20th September 2011 asking for a revised consent reflecting the area of land to be sold. This was an area of approximately 0.3 vergees (see attached map - Revised consent 2011).

The land in question currently has no conditions imposed on it because it was either owned by Mrs Hamon prior to the introduction of the 74 Law or inherited after its introduction. The historic aerial photographs indicate that the field was in grass in 1997 but has not been used for commercial agricultural since 2003 and is currently in grass with a few semi mature trees. The field also has poor access through the domestic curtilage of the property known as Kungsutar Villa.

Consent was refused by the Land Controls and Planning Officer (LCPO) under delegated powers on the grounds that it was against established policy, under the 74 Law, to permit the sale of parts of fields, as this could create areas of land too small to be viable for an agriculturalist to occupy, resulting in their loss to agriculture. Adv S J Habin whom was acting on behalf of Mr and Mrs Stevenson was informed by letter on the 30th November 2011.

A letter from Mr and Mrs Stevenson addressed to the LCPO was received on 25 January 2012 appealing against this refusal and asking for the matter to be taken to the Minister. As a result a letter was sent on the 21st January 2012 confirming that the appeal would be referred to the Minister.

Options

Option 1. Allow the sale of the land area in question thereby splitting the field into two areas one of 1.5 vg and 0.3 vg and impose conditions under the 74 Law. The conditions would allow the land to be used by Mr and Mrs Stevenson but b. restricts what the land can be used for.

1.i b. that [<>] is used for agricultural or horticultural purposes only; this condition

allows the growing of trees and the grazing of equine animals

1. ii c. unconditional:- the issue of this consent is purely permissive and does not

exempt the purchaser from any other statutory controls. In particular the permission of the Planning Department may be required before any of the land is considered to be part of the domestic curtilage of the property.

Option 2. Do not allow the sale of the land and follow current policy which is against the splitting of fields.

Recommendation

Option 1i and 1ii would be against current policy. Therefore it is recommended to refuse the appeal but to confirm that the whole field could be purchased as previously agreed (March 10th 2011).