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. |