Decision(s): The planning application was considered by the Minister for Planning and Environment at the meeting on 8th March 2013 where it was resolved to refuse the proposed development. In making his decision, The Minister required that more specific reasons be given for the refusal of the planning application under Policy C20 of the 2002 Island Plan. Accordingly, the amended reasons for refusal are as follows: 1. In exceptional circumstances, the development of redundant glasshouse sites may be considered for non-agricultural purposes, provided the amount of development permitted will be the 'minimum' required to ensure a demonstrable environmental improvement of the site by the removal of the glasshouses and any contaminated material. In this instance the proposal to construct new residential development on the site is not considered to be the 'minimum' required to ensure a demonstrable environmental improvement required for glasshouse removal and decontamination. Further, the proposals fail to deliver demonstrable environmental improvements sufficient to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in relation to Policies NE 7 & ERE 7 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011. 2. Insufficient information has been submitted to justify an exception to the policy presumption against all forms of new development in the Green Zone for whatever purpose in compliance with the requirements of Policies GD 1 and NE 7 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to the aforementioned policies. 3. It is considered that full and proper marketing of the site, as outlined within Appendix A of the Employment Land Policy E1 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), has not been entered into fully as required by the terms of the stated criteria. Accordingly, the proposals are contrary to the provisions of Policies SP3 and E1 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011. 4. The majority of the appication site is not within the Built-Up Area. Neither is the site in a sensitive landscape location, being predominantly hidden from public view. Although the glasshouses are vacant the proposals are not considered to be in accordance with the Spatial Strategy for the reasons identified above and are therefore contrary to the criteria of Policies SP1, SP 2 and SP3 of the Adopted Island Plan, 2011. 5. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate how the proposed development will be drained; how waste material from the site will be disposed of; how the proposal provides a suitable housing mix on the site, what Percentage for Art contributions will be forthcoming and if the development will have any implications for traffic safety on the adjoining highway network. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policies GD 1; H 4; GD 8; LWM 2; LWM 3 and WM 1 of the Adopted Island Plan 2011. Had the Minister considered this under the 2002 Island Plan policy context, then the application should be refused for the following reasons: 1. There is a presumption against the development of redundant and derelict glasshouses for non-agricultural purposes. The Minister for Planning and Environment does not accept that all the glass on the site is redundant or derelict. No information has been provided to demonstrate how the site and its context will be enhanced by the development, neither has any information been advanced to show that development will not adversely affect the visual character and amenities of the area. In addition, no information has been submitted to demonstrate if any issues of traffic generation, safety or parking can be overcome in this location or if mains drainage is available. Accordingly, no exceptional circumstances have been advanced to outweigh the general policy presumption against new development on such sites in compliance with all the required criteria of Policy C20 of the Adopted Island Plan 2002. As a consequence, the proposed development is contrary to the aforementioned policies. 2. The majority of the site is located within the Countryside Zone where large scale developments will be strongly resisted unless they are proven to be in the island interest and where, unless in exceptional circumstances, there is also a general presumption against the redevelopment of modern agricultural buildings and other commercial buildings. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would give rise to substantial environmental gains and a significant contribution to the character of the area that are required. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to Policy C6 of the Adopted Island Plan 2002. | 
gov.je