Agricultural industry. However, that support is qualified in all the policies. The applicant has not made one single statement to argue that the impact of the development that he proposes is acceptable, and simply ignores the issue. The Department has to balance all the criteria and like many planning judgements, it is a balance and in our view, the benefits to agriculture and Jersey Royal in this case, do not outweigh the negative impacts. Without reiterating the whole of the previous Report (which is appended to this Report) there are a number of points that should be commented upon. From the outset the Department has worked closely with the agricultural industry as a whole to help maintain their role in the countryside. For example, as stated ion the applicant’s letter, and quoting form the Island Plan Paragraph 5.10, ‘changes in agriculture over recent decades have also led to demands for larger industrial style sheds. At the same time, many existing sheds have become redundant’ The need for the development is not contested. Para.5.20 of the Island Plan 2002 defines the principles of the approach to policy making in the countryside to maintain and enhance the quality, character, diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape; to protect agricultural land and encourage a sustainable, diverse and non-polluting agricultural industry which helps to manage the environment and ensures the long term sustainable use of natural resources and to accommodate the pressures for development through wise and sustainable use of rural; land and buildings. It is not considered that the development meets these objectives by its sheer scale, design and location. The applicant refers to the prized asset status of the countryside and ‘protecting the landscape character and biodiversity while meeting the needs of the island’s residents’ with reference to the land set aside within the proposed development for a ‘conservation area’. However agricultural development does not necessarily protect the landscape character and biodiversity and inappropriate development can equally cause harm. It is considered that the proposals fails to satisfy the above aims Para. 5.30 of the Island Plan 2002 refers to the zoning of the land which is intended to give different levels of protection from potentially undesirable developments and states ‘a unique system of sand dunes or stretch of cliffs requires greater safeguarding from development than a similarly sized area of mixed farmland, which is less scarce as a resource and is less sensitive or less significant seen in the wider countryside.’ The Department clearly agrees with this but within the context of farmland, there is still some that is more sensitive than others, as in this case. The applicant quotes further from the Island Plan where it is stated that ‘in a landscape that is largely created by human intervention it would be unreasonable to preclude all forms of development in the future. There may, therefore, be exceptions to the general presumption against development.’ The applicant fails to complete the paragraph which states ‘but only where this does not serve to further detract from or harm the distinctiveness of the landscape character of this zone.’ Nor does he refer to paragraph 5.49 which states ‘for any exceptions to the general presumptions against development to be made the applicant will be required to justify the basis for development in the Countryside Zone. In referring to Policy C6 the applicant fails to include the critical paragraph which states “In all cases the appropriate tests as to whether a development proposal will be permitted will be its impact on the character of this zone.” The Report of the Department was very clear that this was the central issue. As part of the development it is acknowledged that the applicant proposes to set aside a sizeable area of land as a conservation project in accordance with Policy C14 Stewardship in Agriculture. In referring to Policy C16 the applicant claims that within the refusal notice there is no attempt to explain why the clear expressions of support have been ignored and asks does the Panel not believe the justification evidence or the findings of the EDC’s Land Controls and Agricultural Development Report. As previously stated, the Department accepts the need for such a development. However Policy C16 goes on to say that where the justification is accepted the development shall not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area, and shall not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation.’ Again it is impact of the development that is the problem. The Parish strongly opposed the application on the grounds of unacceptable levels traffic in small country lanes, albeit that the applicant has previously stated that in fact the level of traffic would not be great as they would not use the site as a base but as a potato store which means that it would only be visited when the potatoes were to be stored or removed and that the accommodation would not need 28 car parking spaces as indicated on the plan, but 14. Turning to Policy H14 which relates to staff accommodation and recognises that it may be necessary to build dwellings especially for agricultural staff, it is to the applicant’s credit that he wishes to provide a high standard of accommodation for staff. Currently he has something in the region of 500 staff, and these range from manual workers through to senior managers. The accommodation provided at present ranges from poorly converted outbuildings/portacabins to fully furnished cottages and flats. The accommodation ranges over 30 sites throughout the island and includes the lease of a hotel. At the present time the Company has been served an eviction notice which will result in the loss of 67 places at the hotel site and a number of others The Policy only allows staff accommodation in exceptional circumstances, however, and the need for such accommodation does not exempt the applicant from a judgement on the location, design, impact or design. Likewise Policy C17, New Dwellings for Agricultural Workers requires strict adherence to the previously stated criteria. In this instance the proposal is for a replacement of an existing non-agricultural dwelling and the construction of a new agriculturally related dwelling for which there is an outstanding consent on the site. The concerns here are that the replacement dwelling is large and the farm unit would be transposed to the west of the existing site, on previously open land albeit it is proposed to set an area aside on the exiting farm unit for a conservation area. Whilst the principle of the replacement of the existing unconditioned dwelling with another dwelling is not in dispute, it is the size and scale of that house, which the applicant has clearly stated is required to, in part, fund the purchase of the site, that is of concern. Again it is the impact of such a proposal that does not sit with the countryside policies. C20 Redundant Glasshouses presumes against the development of these sites for non-agricultural purposes. It is silent on development for agricultural purposes. The applicant argues that one can therefore assume that the decision not to allow development on a derelict greenhouse site when there is no presumption against it can only be due to some exceptional circumstances. However the Department can contest this assumption because new development is governed by other policies to which reference has already been made. In particular it should also be noted that Para. 5.83 of the Island Plan 2002 states that glasshouses are regarded as temporary structures…and subject to the policies of the countryside at large. The applicant states that Policy C20 has been ignored the Company is financially haemorrhaging with no prospect of development for whatever purpose. The Department would disagree because the applicant came to us, informally with a proposal prior to his purchase of the property which involved the reconstruction of the existing sheds which were in a poor condition, the removal of the glass and its replacement with a number of multi-span tunnels, the construction of the previously approved dwelling, for an agricultural worker, the replacement of the existing unconditioned dwelling, and a small number of staff units. The applicant was advised at the time that he would need to make a convincing case for the new dwellings but as they would be sited within the existing complex of buildings this would meet the criteria of Policies C6 and C17 which do allow for new agricultural dwellings where there is a proven need. (Advice given without prejudice). The applicant then bought the property but submitted the current scheme which is completely different to the scheme that was previously discussed and given cautious and qualified support. The applicant advised the Department and the Minister, at a meeting following the refusal by the Panel of the application, of a ‘Plan B’, which is to construct the agricultural dwelling for which consent exists and it would be sited adjacent to the neighbouring agricultural unit to the west in an attempt to keep the agricultural development together. (The farm unit is not currently in the ownership of the applicant). Secondly, to replace the existing unrestricted dwelling and to replace the extended range of unrestricted outbuildings and all the glass with one single dwelling. The applicant was informed that this could not be supported by the Panel or the Minister due to the restrictions of Policy C20The letter went on to say that we are aware that the Island Plan Policies have not kept up with the rapidly changing circumstances within the agricultural industry and these policies are under review, but until they are finalised and agreed any departure from the existing Island Plan policies at La Hougue Nurseries cannot be supported. The applicant states that the Planning Minister has an obligation in law to be fair and consistent and that if the agricultural application does not find favour, he is not prepared to accept that Plan B cannot be supported in principle and cites Pommier Vineries as part of his argument where a former nursery which comprised a number of glasshouses, and a couple of sundry associated structures was a clear exception to Policy C20, which has very little relevance to the applicant’s case on this application. The outcome would result in significant environment gains and the location of the new dwelling would be adjacent to other dwellings which are part of the Built-Up Area. The only reason that Pommier Vineries was approved was the tidying up of the glass and its replacement with a very low impact form of development, unlike La Hougue Nurseries which would result in significant impact in the countryside. The two sites are completely different and cannot readily be compared. Although the applicant states that it is no fault of the company that the agricultural planning policy is out of date, it is a fact. He chose to purchase this site. Had he asked for advice on the current proposals that advice would have been in the negative. The applicant has focused on all the positive statements within Policies C6, C17, and C20 and has disregarded the qualifying statements that underpin those policies. That is that where development is regarded as having a proven need and essential to the agricultural industry, it still has to be judged against the clearly stated criteria. In this case the impact of the proposal would be significant and do not meet those criteria and therefore there is no case to make a complete departure from the policies. The applicant attracted a significant number of objections from neighbours, some of whom have asked for previous letters to be reconsidered, including Deputy Scott Warren. The Department has to take a balanced view and it is our view that the benefits to agriculture and Jersey Royal do not outweigh the negative impacts that such a development would have on this part of the countryside. Accordingly the Department recommends that the decision to refuse consent is maintained. | 
gov.je