Field 571, Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (01.08.06) to refuse planning permission for Field 571, Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville.

Subject:	Field 571, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville Construction of oyster processing plant & staff accommodation
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2006-0193	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written & Oral	Person Giving Report (if oral):		Elizabeth Ashworth
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		PP/2005/1027
Written Report Title:	Referral to Minister from Planning Applications Panel	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Maintain Panel decision to refuse application (Contrary to Department’s recommendation to approve)
Reason(s) for decision: Contrary to Island Plan Policies as per Reasons listed in the refusal notice.
Action required: Issue Refusal Notice
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 1 August 2006

Field 571, Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville - refusal

Officer Committee Report

SITE VISIT

Application Number

PP/2005/1027

Site Address	Field 571, La Rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville.

Applicant	Jersey Oyster Company Ltd

Description	Proposed shellfish processing unit, 12 No. single/double bed staff quarters & associated landscaping.

Type	Planning Principle

Date Validated	10/06/2005

Zones	Countryside Zone

Policies	C2 Countryside Character C6 Countryside Zone G 3 Quality of Design C16 New Agricultural Buildings H14 Staff accommodation M 5 Fish and Fish Farming TR3 New Tourism Facilities See Appendix for full Policy details

Reason for Referral	(Delete as appropriate) Departure from Island Plan Conflicting policy objectives Level and degree of objection Size and scale of development proposal

Summary/

Conclusion

Firstly this is an application to agree the principle of a new oyster processing plant.

There has been very strong opposition of the proposal on the grounds that it is contrary to a number of Island Plan Policies and will result in unacceptable traffic, noise and odour problems.

It is fully recognised that the proposals push the boundaries of those policies which seek to protect the countryside from inappropriate and unacceptable development. However, this is an enterprise that has been in existence for over 30 years but now finds itself working from inadequate and inefficient premises, a good distance away from the source of its main work, the beach at La Rocque .

The site subject of the application lies in close proximity to the beach and will result in tractors and trailers no longer having to negotiate a long and tortuous route via narrow, steep lanes to St Martin. All of the business will be under one roof.

Both Highway Authorities have supported the application as has the Environmental Health Officer, the Sea Fisheries Officer, then Director of the Environment and the final comments of EDC are awaited, but support has been expressed in the past.

The Applications Sub-Committee has given pre-application advice, strictly without prejudice, supporting the proposal on the basis that there is sufficient justification to override the presumption against on the basis of:

 support for the rural economy;

 proximity to the shellfish growing areas; difficulties encountered at the existing processing site

 whilst the building proposed has a large floor area, and the site is capable of accommodating a good landscaping scheme to modify its impact.

A Report and Proposition against the development was brought to the States which resulted in a 50/50 split decision.

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

Recommendation

Approve the principle of the processing building with significant landscaping, but not the staff accommodation in a separate building.

NOTE the Panel will visit the site and the following persons have been invited to be present

Deputy Labey, Connetable Murphy, Bruce Ferguson on behalf of the residents, Steven Luce and Chris le Masurier on behalf of the Jersey Oyster Company and Dyson Buesnel Architects.

Profiles are to be erected on site.

Site Description	A field to the north of La Rue Mahaut in open countryside.

Relevant Planning History	The Jersey Oyster Company approached the Department in 2004 for pre-application advice on relocating their business which operates from 3 different sites, onto one site. At that time the Company advised that the site would need to accommodate a building to house the processing unit itself, administration areas, general storage and maintenance areas. Combined, the size of the building would be no larger than the buildings used already. The site would require areas for parking of tractors and trailers, storage areas for oyster bags, etc loading areas for beach trailers and articulated lorries. The Company employs 2 directors, a general manager and foreman and has a total of 12 permanent staff who are accommodated at Le Villot Farm adjacent to the existing oyster processing unit. These buildings are leased, not owned, by the Company and the lease could therefore be terminated at any time. A meeting was held between a previous Case Officer where a number of sites were considered: Field 445, La Route le Brun , St Martin (Site opposite the Tower at St Catherines) Part Green Zone, part Zone of Outstanding character. It is an important site for the contribution it makes to the landscape quality of the area. Seaford Farm, La Rue de Pelles, St Martin Green Zone. The site is a long way from the beach at the Seymour Slip where the Company carries out its oyster farming operation and is located away from primary road networks. La Crete Quarry, La Rue d’Anne Port, St Martin Zone of Outstanding Character. This site falls within the most stringent of policy restrictions and is a very open and exposed site. Notwithstanding the policy constraints the site is not large enough to accommodate all the requirements of the Company, there is a large rock overhang that would need to be addressed and the cost could not be borne by the Company, and it is most unlikely that the States, who own the site, would pay for the works which would not be of benefit to the public in general. Field 556/571, La rue du Puits Mahaut, Grouville Countryside Zone. The site lies approximately 200metres from the slipway at Seymour Inn and is a field in an open landscape with some existing planting. In November 2004 a Report was submitted by the Director of Planning for the consideration of the Environment & Public Services Committee which stated that discussions had taken place with a partner of the Company regarding the consolidation of the Company to a single site. The report advised that the Company operated from 3 sites, Cottage Farm, La rue des Pelles where there was an office, Seaford, La rue des Pelles where there was a mussel processing area and Le Villot Farm where the oysters were processed. There had been complaints regarding noise and other matters at Le Villot Farm which were investigated by Environmental Health (These were found to be largely unfounded) The Company had produced a feasibility report in 2001 updated in 2003 into establishing a processing and despatch centre (Copy attached as part of the background papers). Following the discussions with the then Case Officer the Company had reached an agreement with the owner of Field 571 and therefore sought a preliminary view from the Committee in respect of this site. The Report went on to say that the Company had experienced considerable growth over recent years and that having consulted with the Sea Fisheries Officer, he supported the enterprise The existing operation is inefficient operating from 3 sites in St Martin and his farming operations offshore in St Clement and Grouville. If the Company was to consolidate and relocate it makes sense for it to be close to his farming operations. The Company is able to secure field 571, Grouville on which to construct a new building. It is close to another processing shed which was approved some years ago as an exception to policy. Field 571 is relatively isolated from existing development and were the proposed centre to be approved it would be prominent. However there are opportunities to modify its impact by tree planting. The building proposed was of low-profile and some 2172sqm. If approved attention would need to be given to the cladding materials. There was probably sufficient justification to override the presumption against development on the grounds of support for the rural economy; proximity to the shellfish growing area; difficulties encountered at Le Villa Farm and the ability to include a good landscaping scheme. This view was supported by the Director of the Environment and it was therefore recommended that the Company be invited, strictly without prejudice to the Committee’s eventual decision, to submit an application. The Sub-Committee agreed the above on the proviso that the existing operations were ceased. A letter was sent to the Company advising them the Sub-Committee considered that there was sufficient justification to override the presumption against but that the Committee was not prepared to give an absolute commitment to a development on field 571 until it had the opportunity to consult fully through a planning application.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	An agricultural field

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Oyster processing plant and separate staff accommodation (now omitted in a separate building).

Consultations	(Delete as appropriate and summarise comments wherever possible) Transport and Technical Services (Highways) in their letter dated 28 June 2005 state “visibility splays required from the access points onto the main road are required to be 50m x 2.4m with everything within the splays to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. It is noted from the details received that these splays could be achieved by the removal of some of the roadside planting. The Department can recommend the proposal in principle on highway grounds as the positioning of the site in close proximity to the shellfish beds will considerably reduce the amount of tractors and trailer journeys to their present sites. Full ground survey required in due course, to demonstrate that the required splays can be met.” Parish in their letter dated 21 June 2005 state “The Roads Committee has no objections to the proposals as they feel that they conform to the existing Island Plan. They do however ask that restrictions be imposed on the builder/developer that no on road parking will be permitted whilst the development is taking place and that the Parish road La Rue du Puits Mahaur retuned to its predevelopment condition at no expense to the rate payers of Grouville.” Transport and Technical Services (Drainage) in their letter dated 21 June 2005 state that the methods of surface water and foul water will need to be addressed through detailed submission. A trade effluent discharge consent will be required.” It is the intention of the Company to use recycled water technology to wash all shellfish on the premises, with abstraction rates consequently been reduced by at least 90% of current levels. This would comply with supermarket specification for packing and distribution and will allow the Company to pre-pack oysters and mussels which are the only part of the market not directly supplied the present time. Health and Social Services in their letter dated 28 June 2005 advise that that they have had significant involvement with the Company and in respect of this application whilst the premises are located close to residential accommodation, the proposed building should be acceptable, provided that it is adequately insulated; due consideration is given to the siting of any external plant or machinery such as ventilation; the process is properly managed, generally ensuring that activities of the business are unlikely to be intrusive to neighbouring properties even out of hours and given the low background noise levels at night. However the need for tractors and trailers to traverse to the beach and back to the premises late at night with some noise is a matter which it may be more difficult to control. These are traversing public roads, and as the number of movements is expected to be small and not frequently occurring it is not anticipated that this level of activity would give rise to nuisance. It is in any event for short distances and an improvement on the current journey to St Martin. At a recent public meeting (discussed below under Other Material Considerations) residents and certain politicians expressed a desire for the Company to be given an opportunity to re-apply for a new building at their existing premises in St Martin (Le Villot Farm). However in doing so this would continue the difficulties of the Company having to traverse with tractors and trailers through narrow roads over considerable distance which could not be considered sustainable and therefore the current proposals for siting at La Rue du Puits Mahaut, which is only 200 metres from the nearest sip onto the beach would certainly attract the support of this Department with sufficient safeguards in place as previously mentioned. There is likely to be few if any suitable premises for this type of activity around the area, the need to be near to the beach and beach access will put this and other marine businesses in conflict with residential premises. LC &ADS in their report of 15 January 2006 support the proposal stating that the application is essential to the needs of the holding and therefore complies with Island Plan 2002 policy to allow for the construction of new agricultural shed in the Countryside Zone. ESU in their letter dated 25 January 2006 (Sea Fisheries) advise that the existing premises are agricultural sites that have been adapted to farm fishing and are some 31/2 and 4 miles away from the beach on-growing site. The Company has invested in apparatus for sorting, cleaning and grading of oysters and mussels and also in custom built vehicle/vessel for operating in shallow water and on the beach. They have developed very quickly to become one of Jersey’s major shellfish producers and have shown themselves to be adept at finding good markets in France. The Company know it is inefficient because its landbased facilities are situated some distance away from the sites of production. This issue was discussed with the Directors and the Department some 2 years ago and it was agreed that the Company would seek premises located more adjacent to their fish farming operation as it was viewed as essential to the continued viability of the business. The industry is clean, low waste and low impact and supplies to the market a product that promotes positive aspects of Jersey. The application is recommended for approval.” This report is endorsed by the Director of Environment. All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	There have been 21 letters of representation which are generally summarised by 2 neighbours, who have spearheaded the opposition to the development. A petition of 402 signatures was presented to the States along with a Report and Proposition against the proposals which resulted in a 50-50 split decision  contrary to Island Plan Policies  visual impact  unacceptable increase in traffic generation  unacceptable impact on neighbours by virtue of noise, smells and vermin  out of keeping with character of the area  impact of waste water  potential impact on aquaculture A Public Meeting was held and above points were aired. Please refer to the detailed consultations which address these issues below and the Company wrote a final letter before the Report and Proposition went to the States in January reiterating the history of working closely with the Department to find a solution. All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations By far the strongest objections are to the fact that the proposal is contrary to Island Plan Policies for the countryside and refer also to the Strategic Plan for Jersey 2005-10 of which one of the key aims is to protect the natural environment. Whilst welcoming economic growth the plan recognises that the pressures placed on the Island infrastructure and the effect that these changes have on the environment are acknowledged as consequences of economic growth which are managed by policies to minimise the impact of this growth and help to enhance the existing environment. Policy C6 states that this zone will be given a high level of protection and there will be a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever reason. However the policy also states that development that has been proven to be in the Island interest and that cannot be located elsewhere may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the countryside. At the Public meeting the Director of Planning advised that the justification of the proposal was on the grounds that it is similar to an agricultural application with a strong business case that would have economic benefit for the Island. Policy C2 The Countryside Character Appraisal emphasises the need to relate development control decisions to the landscape context of the site and wherever possible to link planning permission with measures to conserve or enhance the local landscape character This does not rule out development but ensures that where there is sufficient justification for permitting development in the countryside that is sensitive to the landscape. Policy C16 refers to new agricultural buildings and states there will be a presumption against new buildings unless it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of Minister that the proposed development cannot be met in existing buildings. The existing leased buildings at Le Villot Farm are not suitable for expansion and the problems associated with traffic and travel distances would remain. All other criteria should be met including no unreasonable effect on the character and amenity of the area, traffic, noise and pollution. Policy H14 states that staff accommodation is generally supported where there is a proven need and in exceptional circumstances staff will need to be accommodated at their place of work and this should normally be provided in temporary buildings. Policy C13 states that there will be a presumption against the permanent loss of agricultural land for development. However, since the Island Plan was adopted in 2002 there has been a significant change in the agricultural industry and it is not considered that the loss of this field is unacceptable. In any event, it could be argued that the field is being put to use to support a related industry. Policy M 5 states proposals to provide facilities and infrastructure which are essential for the fishing and fish farming will normally be supported provided that the development will not unreasonably affect the character and amenities of the are and will not have an unreasonable visual impact; is appropriate in scale, form, massing an design to the site and its context and will not have an unreasonable impact on public health, safety and the environment by virtue of noise, light, odour, fumes or waste products. It is considered that in supporting the industry it is necessary to service this with adequate and appropriate buildings. Policy TR3 supports the development of new tourism sites provided that the policies of the countryside policies as previously described can be met. The Company envisage that a reception room be used for interpretation purposes and would be used as a visitor area where they could demonstrate how they grow the mussels and oysters as well as being able to show how they work on the beach as part of the marine environment and it may be possible to base walks from the site. The Company already hosts a number of tours for the tourism industry or the RJHSA and has close involvement with a project at St Martin’s School who grow and sell the oysters whilst learning about the marine environment. . Land Use Implications The loss of an area of agricultural land is not considered to be unacceptable. Size, Scale & Siting The main processing building measures approximately 2172sm x 8m tall which is equivalent to the size of its existing buildings spread over 3 sites. There is a separate staff accommodation block which the Company have recently stated that they will omit from the scheme. The size of the building is determined by the desire to contain all operations under cover. A one-way system of traffic would operate to minimise the noise of reversing vehicles. The processing unit lies some 120m to the west of the nearest dwellings Design & Use of Materials The building is made up of a number of elements and therefore does not resemble the agricultural buildings that are familiar in the landscape It uses vertical timber boarding of varying widths and stains with a light grey powder coated aluminium seamed roof, with glazed areas. Impact on Neighbours Environmental Health advise that the proposals are unlikely to give rise to problems if the building is adequately insulated, ventilation and other external plant is carefully sited and the process is properly managed. They do not consider that the number of traffic movements would give rise to nuisance. Transport and Technical Services (Highways) also support the proposal, as it would considerably reduce the amount of tractors and trailer journeys to their present site. In fact the need to go to other sites would cease. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The proposals are supported both by PSD Highways and the Parish Roads Committee. There are 7 staff carparking spaces, trailer storage and 12 visitor spaces shown around the building and it is the intention to operate a one-way system to minimise any noise from reversing vehicles. Foul Sewage and Surface Water Disposal To be addressed at Detailed Planning Stage Landscaping issues There is existing landscaping and additional planting is proposed of which 30% would be native woodland. It is also proposed that a planted bank of 2 metres or more, if deemed appropriate, would be formed around the site to help minimise any impact in the landscape. Other Material Considerations Because of the strength of feeling a Public Meeting was called by residents at the Parish Hall on Monday 27 June 2005. The Company and residents were represented along with the Case Officer and Director of Planning. It was very well attended and aired all the concerns of the residents, which are as follows Traffic and Noise As can be seen from the responses form consultees, they do not consider that there will be problems with these matters. Environment The objectors have stated that to their knowledge an Environmental Impact Assessment has not been undertaken. However, the Director of Environment advises that the application was scrutinised to establish the need for such an appraisal and it was decided that one would not be required Aquaculture Comments have been received about the impact on the aquaculture. The application is not proposing an increase in the numbers of oysters to be farmed and any such increase would need to be applied for in the normal way through the Environment and Planning Departments and would be advertised and public consultation would take place. This application is about the consolidation of existing shore based operations onto one site with the obvious economies of operation that this will bring. Waste Water The Company advises that it would use recycled water technology which abstracts about 90% less that at present. The Company generates approximately 1000 traffic movements per year costing over £12,000 in diesel fuel as they have to travel between La Rocque and St Martin via a tortuous route along steep and narrow lanes. The Company has had the support of the former Agricultural and Tourism Committees and in the past had hoped that funding might be available to pursue, for example, an information centre. This funding has not been forthcoming but the Company has worked closely with the above Committees to raise the awareness of the product. At the Public meeting various alternative sites were suggested by the representatives as being redundant agricultural sites including L’Industrie Rue des Samares. Apart from its close proximity to residential properties, the road is too narrow and congested to support additional vehicles of the size used by the Company. Thereby followed a pledge by Deputy Le Main along with Deputy Labey and Connetable Murphy to work with Planning and the Company to find an alternative site. A number of meetings have been held with all parties, however, following exhaustive efforts by the Company to find a suitable alternative site that would achieve their needs for space, proximity to beach and so on, no site has been found. To conclude it is recognised that the application pushes the boundaries of the Island Plan Policies and other documents with regard to the stated aims of protecting the countryside. However, these policies presume against development, but do not categorically state that development cannot take place. It is considered that the building, whilst large, is of a design and use of materials that are far superior to the standard profile clad sheds that have been agreed over the years as part of the support for the agricultural industry. Whilst the building will be visible the existing and proposed banking and planting will help screen the building in the landscape and the planting of native woodland will encourage wildlife. It is however recommended that the new staff building is not approved. In this case it is considered that there is sufficient justification to grant an exception the policies because of the benefits to the rural economy, and the community in general through the work that is currently done with a school, tourists groups and others to promote an understanding of not only the business but the marine environment; the removal of unsustainable working practices of having to travel approximately 1000 times per year from the beach to the existing processing unit via primary routes and then narrow, steep country lanes, which in turn would lead to a significant reduction in the use of fuel and ‘food miles.’ Finally the Company has asked it be borne in mind that the States were effectively asked to refuse commercial development of any size in the countryside and that a refusal here would leave them with nowhere to go and a very uncertain future. If this application is approved the Detailed Planning application will deal with matters such as foul and surface water drainage and Environmental Health requirements and all consultees will be asked again for their advice on that submission in the normal way.

Recommendation	Approve the processing building but do not approve the staff accommodation in a separate building

Conditions/ Reasons	That full details of the landscaping shall be submitted as part of the Detailed Planning Application Full details of the method of disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted as part of the Detailed Planning Application Full details of methods of sound insulation in accordance with the requirements of Environmental Health shall be submitted as part of the Detailed Planning application. On completion of the building the 3 existing sites shall cease to operate.

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Policy Details Pre-application advice Committee Act dated 22 December 2004 Consultations from Transport and Techcnical Serves Highways and Drainage Health and Social Services Parish Roads Committee ESU Jersey Agriculture Letters of objection Report and Proposition Letters from applicant (Also include correspondence from Case Officer – Possibly [pre-application advice & any other relevant material)

Endorsed by:

Date: