States of Jersey Complaints Board: Findings-Complaint Against a Decision of the Min. for P&E Regarding Fld.189,Sandhurst

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS BOARD: FINDINGS –

COMPLAINT AGAINST A DECISION OF THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT REGARDING

FIELD 189, SANDHURST, ST. OUEN

Presented to the States on 25th August 2011 by the Privileges and Procedures Committee

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: C  R.109

REPORT

Foreword

In accordance with Article 9(9) of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982,  the  Privileges  and  Procedures  Committee  presents  the  findings  of  the Complaints Board constituted under the above Law to consider a complaint against the Minister for Planning and Environment to refuse permission to develop houses on Field 189,  Sandhurst,  La  Route  de  Vinchelez,   St. Ouen  (land  in  the  Countryside Zone).

Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary ,

Chairman, Privileges and Procedures Committee.

STATES OF JERSEY COMPLAINTS BOARD 25th July 2011

Findings of the Complaints Board constituted under

the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982 to consider a complaint by Jersey Royal Company Limited, represented by Morris Architects,

against the Minister for Planning and Environment

to refuse permission to develop houses on Field 189, Sandhurst, La Route de Vinchelez, St. Ouen (land in the Countryside Zone)

1. Present – Board Members

Mr. N. Le Gresley, Chairman Mr. F. Dearie

Mr. R. Bonney

Complainant

Mr. T. Binet , Jersey Royal Company Limited Mr. A. Morris, Morris Architects

On behalf of the Minister

Mr. R. Webster, Principal Planner (Appeals)

Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour States Greffe

Mrs. L. Hart , Assistant Greffier of the States Mrs. L. Houguez, States Greffe

The hearing was held in public at 2.30 p.m. on 25th July 2011 at St. Ouen 's Parish Hall .

2. Summary of the dispute

2.1  The Board was convened to hear a complaint by the Jersey Royal Company Limited (the complainant) against a decision of the Minister for Planning and Environment to refuse permission to demolish an existing woodchip store and construct 3 x one-bedroom, 4 x 2-bedroom and 3 x 3-bedroom agricultural dwellings on Field No. 189, Sandhurst (formerly Le Lay Nurseries), La Route de Vinchelez, St. Ouen .

3. Site Visit to Sandhurst, formerly Le Lay Nurseries, Field 189, La Route de Vinchelez, St. Ouen

1. Following the formal opening of the hearing at St. Ouen 's Parish Hall , all parties agreed to the circulation of an additional map by the complainant, depicting all of the areas farmed by the Jersey Royal Company Limited (JRC). It was noted that this covered almost a third of Jersey's land area. The meeting then adjourned to conduct a site meeting and view the existing buildings for which planning permission had been given. The Board noted that the site comprised a number of glasshouses and ancillary buildings. It was proposed to construct the dwellings at the northern end of the site, which was isolated from the road and where there was currently a relatively recently constructed woodchip store, boiler and large external woodchip storage area. Whilst on site the Board was advised that an existing planning permission had been granted to the former owner of the site in June 2008 and this permission remained live'. Part of the permit had allowed for the construction of the woodchip boiler store, which was to be used to heat the adjacent greenhouses, in which the former owner had cultivated peppers. The greenhouses were now used by the JRC to store seed potatoes and also to grow an early crop of new potatoes.  Neither  of  these  usages  was  reliant  upon  the  woodchip  heating system and therefore the store was now surplus to requirements. Other aspects of  the  existing  permit  allowed  the  construction  of  5 units  of  staff accommodation, the placement of 2 oil storage tanks in the field and the demolition of greenhouses. The complainant's proposed scheme sought to demolish  the  woodchip  store  and  construct  a  traditional  courtyard development arranged in a U-shape. In the centre a 5-bay, 2½ storey building evoking a traditional farmhouse was proposed. From this building 2 wings projected, one of which would be 1½ storeys and the other 2½ storeys in height. The majority of the buildings were faced in render, although some were granite. All roofs were slate with lead dormers and the windows, doors and fascias were timber. It was considered that the design was sympathetic to traditional Island architecture and its context. All the properties had parking and garden amenity space.
2. The Board noted that the complainant had suggested that vehicles could be situated at the southern end of the site near the road, in order to mitigate the need for car parking on Field 189, but had been advised by Planning Officers that it was necessary for the scheme to stand alone'. Mr. T. Binet advised the Board that the JRC employed over 550 staff Island-wide and farmed around 3,000 vergées in the west of the Island, but presently had just 6 units of staff accommodation in St. Ouen . The company had 11 tiers of staff and it was envisaged  that  the  proposed  development  would  house  senior  managers. Although it was not incumbent on the JRCto house staff, it was recognised that  the  agricultural  industry  now  employed  a  number  of  highly  skilled individuals to meet the demands of supermarket standards and an investment in training and accommodation ensured staff retention.
3. Mindful that the Planning Applications Panel had also viewed the site from the roadside, the Board paused as it returned to the Parish Hall , in order to assess the visual impact of the proposed development from the lane to the east of the site.

4. Summary of the Complainant's case

1. Upon reconvening at the Parish Hall , the Chairman formally welcomed both parties  to the  meeting  and  reiterated  the  terms  of  Article 9  of  the Administrative  Decisions  (Review)  (Jersey)  Law  1982,  against  which  the complaint  would  be  considered.  He  advised  that,  having  reviewed  the summary of the complaint, the Board needed to be apprised of the details of the case, in order that it could consider the matter fully.
2. Mr. A. Morris, Architect, advised that the grounds given for the refusal of the scheme  by  the  Planning  Applications  Panel  had  been  the  scale  of  the development  and  the  landscape  impact  on  the  Green  Zone.  However,  he contended that the application had not been submitted on a whim and that his client, fully aware of the relevant policies governing the Green Zone, had purchased the site with great care and with specific intentions to create staff accommodation  for  the  JRC.  Following  the  purchase  of  the  site, representatives of the company and the architect had met several times on site with  Planning  officers  and  the  Minister  before  a  formal  submission  for Planning  consent  was  made.  The JRC had  ensured  that  Planning representatives had visited the company's other operational sites and had a full appreciation  of  the  demands  on  the  company,  particularly  in terms  of accommodating staff. Pre-planning advice had been received from Planning Officers, who had recommended the approval of the application. Although the site lay within the Green Zone, wherein there was a presumption against development,  Policies  C5  and  C17  allowed  for  the  development  of accommodation which was essential to the needs of agriculture, was in the best  interests  of  the  Island  economy  and  which  met  certain  criteria.  In assessing  the  need  for  agricultural  accommodation,  the  Department  relied upon the advice of the Land Controls and Agricultural Development Section (LCADS) of the Environment Department. It was noted that advice received had indicated a shortfall in adequate accommodation for agricultural workers and LCADS had supported the proposal. It had therefore come as quite a surprise to the complainant when the Planning Applications Panel had refused the application.
3. Mr. Morris  reiterated  that  there  was  a  proven  need  for  agricultural  staff accommodation and that this needed to be of a certain quality to meet the minimum standards laid down by the supermarkets. Staff needed to be highly skilled in order to facilitate the audit process demanded by the supermarkets and this required investment by the JRC. Mr. Morris noted that the Island Plan focused very heavily on the conservation of the Green Zone, and he pointed out  that  the  alternative  use  of  the  glasshouses  for  early  crop  potatoes represented a recycling of existing resources and there would be a reduction in energy consumption, as the structures would not need to be heated to the same level as that required for pepper production. He argued that the site had been identified  as  a  so-called  brown  field  site'  allowing  the  construction  of agricultural buildings. Mr. Morris advised the Board that the application had been refused on a number of policy grounds and he sought to address each of these individually.

4. It  was  noted  that  Policy G2,  General  Development  Considerations, predominantly dealt with the character of the area, landscaping, highways and impact upon other properties, whilst Policy G3 sought to improve the quality of development. Mr. Morris maintained that the design of the development had been acknowledged as high quality: it was sympathetic to the character of the area and no objections had been raised by the Panel in this regard. The perceived visual intrusion of the development was subjective, but Mr. Morris contended that development had to occur and things had to change in order for the Island to continue to evolve. The glasshouses were already constructed on the site and the complainant, mindful of the policy issues, had endeavoured to produce a quality design and building, with undulated roofs to mitigate any visual  intrusion'.  Mr. Morris  referred  to the  high  quality  of  other developments completed by the applicant company and advised the Board that the company was committed to providing buildings of architectural merit. The company  did  not  believe  that  agricultural  workers  should  live  in accommodation of a lesser quality.
5. There would be little impact upon agricultural land, in fact it was argued that the development would support the preservation of the environment in the future  by  providing  accommodation  for  the  very  people  who  worked  the countryside. There would be a reduction in the amount of traffic travelling to and from the site, as staff from other locations would no longer have to be transported there. With regard to access, the Transport and Technical Services Department  had  confirmed  that  the  access  arrangements  were  acceptable, subject to the maintenance of hedges and the adaptation of existing banks. Finally, it was noted that to the north of the application site a bank would be created which would be planted to provide a natural screen.
6. It was recognised that under Policy C5 the areas designated as Green Zone within the Island Plan were given a high level of protection, and there was a general  presumption  against  all  forms  of  new  development  for  whatever purpose.  However,  certain  types  of  development  could  be  permitted  and Mr. Morris  maintained  that  these  decisions  were  often  subjective.  Under Policy C5(iv), a new development on an existing agricultural holding was permitted if it was essential to the needs of agriculture and in accordance with Policies C16 and C17. It was argued that both C16 and C17 were applicable in this instance as there was a demonstrated need for such accommodation; that this  was  in the  best  interests  of  the  Island  and  could  not  be  provided elsewhere. The complainant sought to create a second base for the JRC and believed that the application met the criteria of both Policy C16 and C17. Mr. Morris  contended  that  the  application,  which  had  been  supported  at Planning officer level, had been refused by the Planning Applications Panel because the Panel had failed to understand the JPC's aims and requirements. He concluded that the application had been refused due to the scale of the development  and  the  extent  of  its  impact  upon  the  Green  Zone,  and  he contended that this decision had been based on subjective opinions and had not been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of all the facts'.

7. Mr. T. Binet explained the extent of the JRC's business interests in the Island, and the Board noted that the company was responsible for two thirds of Jersey's  rural  economy.  Mr. Binet  considered  that  the  refusal  of  the company's application was the latest chapter in a catalogue of clashes with the Planning Department. He highlighted that over the years a significant number of agricultural units had been taken out of the industry, thus reducing the supply of accommodation. At the same time, the nature of the industry had changed and accommodation for a whole range of workers was required. Farming had evolved into an efficient and sophisticated business, and the JRC was a profitable operator working for all but one of the United Kingdom's main supermarket chains. The relationship with the supermarkets relied upon the smooth operation of the business in the Island. Mr. Binet advised that he had been involved in 7 skirmishes' with the Planning Department over the years and considered that changes to the Island's farming culture had attracted an enormous amount of resentment. The company was the biggest land user in each Parish and he believed that a negative letter from the Procureur du Bien Public of St. Ouen relating to the application, which was contained within the complainant's submission, was indicative of the prevailing attitudes of the Parish Connétable s. He outlined the difficulties faced by the JRC when it was first established, and previous disagreements with the Planning Department, three of which Mr. Binet had pursued to the Royal Court. He considered that there  existed  a  misconception  that  the  JRC sought  to become  property developers as opposed to farmers.
8. The Board  questioned  whether  there  was  any  way  that  the  Planning Department could ensure that developments created for agricultural use could be maintained for this purpose in perpetuity. The Principal Planner (Appeals) advised  that  the  creation  of  agricultural  residential  accommodation  was subject to special dispensations, and agricultural occupancy conditions were placed  upon  any  developments  which  fell  within  this  area.  However,  he advised  that  over  time  it was  common  for  requests  to be  made  to the Department for such conditions to be lifted to allow occupancy by the open' market.  If  there  was  an  application  to remove  agricultural  occupancy conditions, the applicant was expected to advertise the units concerned for a specific period of time to demonstrate that there was no longer an agricultural demand. The Principal Planner (Appeals) expressed concern that the risk of abuse during this process was high, but this was refuted by Mr. Binet .
9. Mr. Morris conceded that there had been some negotiations in respect of the occupancy conditions placed upon the JRC's property known as Westpoint, which the company had purchased for use as a seed shed. In order to fund the outlay on this property, the company had sought to sell 2 residential units created  at  the  site,  but  both  had  been  subject  to agricultural  occupancy conditions. The Planning Applications Panel had subsequently relaxed this condition  in relation  to one  of  the  properties  and  the  JRC  was  currently seeking  to overturn  the  remaining  condition.  In  conclusion,  Mr. Binet reiterated that the JRC was responsible for two thirds of the Island's rural economy and employed over 550 staff. He questioned where he was expected to accommodate his staff if this development was refused.

5. Summary of the Minister's case

1. The Board noted that the application site was situated within the Green Zone. Polices G2, G3, C5 and C17 of the 2002 Island Plan were relevant to the application.
2. Island Plan Policy C5 allowed in principle for the construction of agricultural workers' accommodation where it was considered essential to the needs of agriculture and therefore in the Island's interest, and that the landscape impact of the proposals was acceptable. The application had been refused on the grounds that the location and siting of the proposed development, together with the number and scale of dwellings proposed, would have a detrimental impact upon the character of the area, and the landscape of this part of the Green Zone. It was considered that the impact on the landscape was not acceptable and that there was no adequate justification for approval of this accommodation on this particular site, and in this position, given that impact.
3. The Principal Planner (Appeals) advised the Board that he had not dealt with the  application and  sought  to arbitrate  on  behalf  of  the Minister  and  the Planning Applications Panel. He outlined the policies upon which the refusal had been made and explained the history of the application.
4. Most  non-contentious  applications  were  determined  by  officers  under delegated powers, and the rest by the Planning Applications Panel and the Minister. In essence the officers made recommendations, but it was the elected politicians  who  made  the  decisions.  It  was  noted  that  if officer recommendations were always accepted then that would obviate the need for a Panel.  A  degree  of discretion  was  always  required  when considering  any application  in order to balance  the  environmental  and  Green  Zone  issues against the needs of agriculture, and it was common for there to be opposing points  of  view,  although  neither  were  necessarily  unreasonable'.  The Principal Planner (Appeals) asserted that the decision taken by the Planning Applications Panel, although different from that of the Planning Officers, had not been unreasonable. Having noted that its decision to refuse the above application  on  11th  November  2010,  had  been  contrary  to the  officer recommendation,  the  Panel  had  referred  the  matter  to the  Minister  for Planning and Environment during what was known as a cooling off' period. At this point the Minister was able to call in the decision and determine the application himself; issue comments or advice, or make no comment and refer the matter back to the Panel. The Minister had chosen the latter option and the Panel had consequently reconsidered the application on 16th December 2010 and maintained its refusal.
5. The Principal  Planner  (Appeals)  indicated  that  the  north  western  area  of St. Ouen was a particularly sensitive area of the Green Zone, and as such it was  afforded  a  high  level  of  protection  and  there  existed  a  general presumption against all new forms of development for whatever purpose.

6. The Principal Planner (Appeals) acknowledged that development in the Green Zone for agricultural purposes could be permitted in special circumstances, when  the  scale, location  and  design  did  not  detract  or  visually  harm  the character of the area. It was noted that any decision hinged upon the essential nature of the development to the proper function of the farm holding and whether the agricultural needs could not reasonably be met within the built-up area or from the conversion/modification of an existing building.
7. The Principal Planner (Appeals) reminded the Board that the Planning Laws and policies were in place to protect the countryside, and the presumption against development was fundamental to this aim. Farmers were supported as the custodians of the countryside, but any agricultural dwellings had to be strongly justified. The previous owner of Sandhurst had demonstrated a need for staff to be housed on-site to attend to the greenhouses, and it was not considered that the existing permit represented an adverse impact upon the landscape.  The  situation  with  the  complainant's  application  was  quite different and there appeared little or no agricultural justification to create accommodation specifically on this site.
8. It  was  noted  that  the  Planning  Applications  Panel  had  also  assessed  the application against Policy G2. Whilst it accepted the JRC's general need for staff accommodation, the Panel had concluded that, even if there had been a compelling  case  for  accommodation  on  this  site,  it  would  not  have  been supportive  of  the  scale  and  extent  of  the  development  in this  particular location.  In  essence,  the  extent  and  impact  of  the  development  in the Countryside Zone outweighed any justification on agricultural grounds.
9. The Principal Planner (Appeals) reiterated that the existing planning permit had been approved as the Planning Applications Panel had considered that there had been extenuating reasons for staff to be accommodated on site. This was not applicable to the JRC's proposed development – the 10 houses would not be for the staff working in the adjacent greenhouses. It was noted the previous owner of the site had been advised that he could not build on the field and there had been some negotiation regarding the location of the 5 staff units, culminating in the agreement for the woodchip store to be constructed in Field 189. The Principal Planner (Appeals) accepted that it was ironic that the existence of the woodchip store was now being cited as grounds for further development in this Green Zone site. He repudiated the notion that this was a so-called brown field site' and highlighted the fact that the existing store occupied  some  2,500 square feet  whilst  the  combined  footprint  of  the 10 houses  was  9,600 square feet  notwithstanding  the  amenity  spaces.  The Principal Planner (Appeals) reiterated that it was the scale and location of the development which had been pivotal to the Planning Applications Panel's refusal. The Department had recognised the importance of the JRCto the Island, both agriculturally and economically, but had expressed a preference within  the  officer's  report  to the  Planning  Applications  Panel  for  the development to be located to a less isolated position. Following its site visit, the Panel had been unanimous in its refusal on the basis of scale and the impact on the character of the Countryside. He reminded the Board that it was the Planning Applications Panel's job to make judgements and he considered it had done so, in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the policies contained within the Island Plan 2002.

10. The Board  was  advised  that  pre-application  advice  was  given  without prejudice and did not create a legitimate expectation that an application would be approved. The Principal Planner (Appeals) restated that the field was not a brown field site' and that the application had been refused primarily because the site was within the Green Zone. He acknowledged that the quality of the design was exceptional, but it had been deemed contrary to Policy G3 in terms of scale and location. It was accepted that there had been a mishandling of the application in respect of Westpoint, another of the JRC's properties, but he explained that this had been partly due to confusion caused by supplementary planning guidance advice, which had subsequently been withdrawn on the advice of the Law Officers' Department. A compromise had been reached and the Minister had removed the agricultural occupancy conditions of one of the houses. The Principal Planner (Appeals) pointed out that the houses were not yet built and the company was already trying to lift the remaining occupancy condition.
11. Connétable  P.F.M.  Hanning  of   St. Saviour  addressed  the  meeting,  in his capacity as a member of the Planning Applications Panel. He reiterated that the Panel was elected to make decisions in accordance with the Planning Law and  policies  and  it  was  not  unusual  for  the  Panel  to go  against  officer recommendations  on  occasions.  Whilst  officers  were  required  to adhere strictly to policy, the Panel judged each application on its individual merit. Connétable Hanning advised that there were times when he disagreed with some  of  the  policies.  He  had  no  personal  problem  with  the JRC and  he considered the company had done a lot for the Island and to some extent had saved' the potato industry. He believed the company was well managed and on  a  parochial  level  he  had  no  concerns.  He  did  take  issue  with  the exploitation by companies of loopholes in the Planning Law, but emphasized that his disquiet was directed at the Planning Law rather than at the JRC. He took exception to accusations of bias against the company in the past and highlighted that, although he had spoken against some agricultural planning applications, he had voted in favour as they were in accordance with the Planning Law and policies. Connétable Hanning asserted that he had not used the  term  potato  barons'  in a  derogatory  way,  rather  to accentuate  the dominant role the JRC played in the Island's rural economy.
12. Connétable Hanning stated that he was aware of the JRC's difficulties in accommodating staff, but he reminded the Board that the Panel's decision was in relation to the 10 houses proposed for the site in the Green Zone. He accepted that some concessions had to be made to support the agricultural industry, but emphasized that such concessions could only be made when the impact upon the countryside was minimal. It was noted that the Panel had considered the design of the development to be of exceptional quality, but that its location was unacceptable. If the application had been submitted by a dairy farmer who needed to have staff living on site, then a concession might have been made. However, there was no justification for the company's middle or senior managers to live on this site as they were not the people pulling the crops out of the ground'. In closing, Connétable Hanning advised that the arguments put forward by the JRC had not been strong enough to justify building  in the  Countryside  Zone.  Whilst  Policy C5  was  open  to

interpretation, it was not unreasonable' for the Planning Applications Panel to have made the decision to refuse the application.

13. Mr. Binet disagreed. He stated that the Connétable 's last comments about the staff not being the people pulling the crops out of the ground' exemplified the Panel's lack of understanding of the JRC's business. Mr. Binet told the Board that he had been advised to look for brown field sites' to develop for staff accommodation.  His  company  had  96 staff  vans,  and  most  of  the  staff currently had to be transported to and from a number of fields across the Island. Farmsteads had gradually been taken out of agriculture for residential use, and replacement accommodation for agricultural staff needed to be found. The JRC sought to develop a western team' base for its staff, but Mr. Binet stressed that, in essence, the whole Island was the JRC's farm.
14. The Board questioned whether any consideration had been given to relocating the development closer to the road, rather than in Field 189, but was advised by the Principal Planner (Appeals) that situating the dwellings closer to the road would require the demolition of existing viable agricultural buildings, something which the applicant company did not support. Mr. Binet advised that  the  glasshouses  had  cost  £1.2 million  and  allowed  the  company  to guarantee early potatoes for the supermarkets. Mr. Morris advised that it had been considered that the development would have more of a visual impact on the  countryside  if  was  situated  closer  to the  road,  notwithstanding  the reluctance of the JRC to demolish extremely useful glasshouses, and it had been deemed preferable to try and nestle' the development at the rear of the site. He concluded that the Planning Applications Panel had misunderstood the needs of the JRC.
15. The Board asked the complainant to quantify what the Planning Applications Panel had misunderstood. Mr. Binet advised that the Chief Executive Officer, Planning  and  Environment  had  concurred  that there  was  an  obligation  to ensure that the people running' the environment had the tools to do the job. Mr. Binet considered that the Planning Applications Panel had not balanced the needs of the JRC as custodians of the countryside against the policies pertaining  to the  protection  of  the  Green  Zone.  He  considered  that  his perceived  grudge'  against  the  company  was  an  additional  complicating factor.  Mr. Binet  concluded  that  the  decision  made  by  the  Planning Applications Panel had been incorrect in context of the company's need for agricultural accommodation and the Panel had failed to understand how the industry now operated and what it needed to sustain its business.
16. The Chairman thanked both parties for attending the meeting and advised that it was a complex case which would require detailed thought. The parties then withdrew from the meeting to enable the Board to consider its findings.

6. The Board's findings

1. The Board, having carefully reviewed the decision made by the Planning Applications  Panel,  found  it to be in accordance with the  policies  which applied to the application. Accordingly, the Board had no option but to reject the Complainant's contention that the decision made by the Minister could be criticised on any of the following grounds –

1. contrary to law;
2. unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, or was in accordance with a provision of any enactment or practice which is or might be unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory;
3. based wholly or partly on a mistake of law or fact;
4. could not have been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of all the facts; or,
5. contrary to the generally accepted principles of natural justice.

2. The Board agreed that this had been a difficult case to adjudicate. Whilst the majority of the Board concurred that the complaint against the Minister could not be upheld on the grounds of any of the terms outlined in Article 9 of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982, some felt that the final decision had been finely balanced.
3. One Panel member felt strongly that the complaint should be upheld, as he considered that the decision could not have been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of the facts. He contended that the design submitted was of a superior quality and the scale of the development, being to the north of a large glasshouse complex, would not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding countryside area. He argued that the Company was pivotal to the agricultural economy and the area of Green Zone land which would be relinquished was negligible when compared to the vast swathes of green fields maintained by the JRC.
4. Whilst the Board agreed that the design of the proposed development was of a high standard, it accepted that this was not pertinent to its deliberations within the scope of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982. The Board was mindful that it was not in a position to say whether the decision to reject  the  application  itself  was  wrong and  it acknowledged  that  it  was convened solely to determine whether the complainant had been dealt with in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures. Consequently the Board opined that the complainant had failed to provide evidence that the Planning Applications  Panel  had  not  fully  understood  the  Planning  policies  or harboured a prejudice against the JRC, and it could not support the argument that  the  decision  made  had  been  unreasonable'  in accordance  with paragraph (d) of Article 9 of the Administrative Decisions (Review) (Jersey) Law 1982.

5. The Board unanimously expressed disquiet that the Minister had decided to remain  silent  when  the  matter  had  been  referred  from  the  Planning Applications Panel. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister had the option to call in the decision and determine the application himself, issue comments or advice, or make no comment and refer the matter back to the Panel, the Board considered it puzzling that the Minister had chosen the latter option and not expressed an opinion one way or another. The Board found this unhelpful and was of the view that when a matter was referred to the Minister in this manner in the future, it was crucial that some form of comment was recorded.

6. The Board  wished  to strongly  encourage  the  Minister,  Department  and Planning  Applications  Panel  to work  with  the  complainant  to find  an acceptable and coherent solution to the broader issues raised by this appeal. The Board considered that an acceptable outcome could be reached through negotiation. It was suggested that any conditions placed upon agricultural developments in the Green Zone could be strengthened in order to assuage any concerns regarding their long-term agricultural use. The Board recognised the  enormously  important  position  the  JRC occupied  within  the  Island's agricultural economy, and agreed that all parties should work together in order to achieve the objective of supporting the Jersey Royal Company and the agricultural industry in general.

Signed and dated by:  ......................................................................................

Mr. N. Le Gresley, Chairman

......................................................................................

Mr. F. Dearie

......................................................................................

Mr. R. Bonney