Field 97, Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 (13.04.07) to maintain refusal of planning permission for Field 97, Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin.

Subject:	Field 97, La Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin, JE3 6AY Construct dwelling for agricultural purposes in part of field 97. REVISED PLANS: Construct extensions to north and east elevations.
Decision Reference:	MD-PE-2007-0133	Exempt clause(s):		n/a
Type of Report (oral or written):	Written	Person Giving Report (if oral):		n/a
Telephone or e-mail Meeting?	n/a	Report File ref:		RP/2006/1984
Written Report Title:	Request for Reconsideration of refusal of Planning Permission	Written report – Author:		Elizabeth Ashworth
Decision(s) Maintain Refusal of Planning Permission
Reason(s) for decision: The proposals are contrary to Policies C5 and C17 of the Island Plan and there are no grounds to warrant a reversal of the decisions to refuse consent.
Action required:
Signature: (Minister)			Date of Decision: 13.04.07

Field 97, Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin - maintain refusal

Officer Committee Report

Application Number

P/2005/1441

Site Address	Field 97, La Grande Route de Rozel, St. Martin, JE3 6AY.

Applicant	Rozel Farms Ltd

Description	Construct 3 bedroom dwelling to serve as farm house with seperate double garage, workshop, office & storage area.

Type	Planning

Date Validated	17/08/2005

Zones	Green Zone

Policies	C5 Green Zone C13 Safeguarding farmland C17 New dwellings for farmworkers

Reason for Referral	Size and scale of development proposal Contrary to Island Plan Policy C5

Summary/

Conclusion

The proposed dwelling is being recommended for approval because essentially, the applicant’s agricultural circumstances have not changed since Committee approved the principle of a new dwelling in field 96 in October 2004. However, the proposal as submitted is unacceptable in terms of size, scale and the amount of agricultural land that has been included as domestic curtilage.

Recommendation

Advise a lesser form of development and omission of garage/workshop building.

Site Description	A field adjacent to the farm Le Gros Rocher to the north of La Grande Route de Rozel

Relevant Planning History	Following a refusal and then a Review Board which found in the applicants favour, Planning Permission in Principal was granted in 2004 for a new dwelling on field 96. The site is some distance from the farm, though accessed by the same access point, and overlooks Rozel. When the Detailed Planning Application was made it became apparent that the applicant had failed to advise the Review Board and the Committee that he had purchased Field 97, which lies immediately adjacent of the main farm group. The applicant had been asked about the ownership of this field as its location adjacent to the existing farm complex meant that development on this field fell in line with Policy C5 and C17, but advised that he rented it but did not own it. The applicant farms a significant amount of land from the existing site at Le Gros Rocher. The Committee took legal advice and decided to refuse consent for the Detailed Planning Application on the grounds that the circumstances of the case did not warrant an exception being made to Island Plan policies. The Committee also considered that the proposal, by virtue of the size, height, mass and design represents an unacceptable form of development with an unacceptable visual impact in the Green Zone and therefore fails to satisfy the criteria of C5.

Existing use of Land/Buildings	Agricultural field

Proposed use of Land/Buildings	Dwelling, garage/workshop and garden

Consultations	PSD (Highways) in their letter dated 24 October 2005 state “although not reaching our current standard, the increase in visibility outweighs the small increase in vehicle numbers that will be generated by the construction of the house. .” PSD (Drainage) in their letter dated 24 August 2005 state “ drainage proposals are satisfactory.” LC &ADS in their letter dated 7 October 2005 state ”Trevor Renouf’s farming activities have not changed since October 2004 when he received approval in principal for an agricultural dwelling although he has decided not to go ahead with the intended diversification into beef production. This Section’s existing policy for the construction of an agricultural dwelling on agricultural land to serve a farm holding has to balance the needs of the farm holding against the loss of agricultural land. In this instance although not essential, the construction of an agricultural worker’s dwelling is desirable as it would be convenient for Mr Renouf to live on the site for the management of the farm and staff who are accommodated at Le Gros Rocher. The loss of 1.5 vergees of good agricultural land in Field 97 is regrettable as it makes the field less commercially viable.” All consultations are attached with the background papers

Summary of Representations	There have been 2 letters of representations  Contrary to Island Plan Policies  out of keeping with character of the area  noise, disturbance and traffic generation All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

Planning Issues	Policy Considerations C5 , C13 C17 New dwellings for farmworkers in the Green Zone, can be acceptable provided that they meet certain criteria and proximity to any existing buildings is such a criteria. Then policy actually states that there will be a presumption against proposals for new dwellings unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Committee that it is essential for the running of the farm. The original application was refused in April 2004 because the Committee was not convinced that justification exists to allow new development on this agricultural holding to warrant making an exception to Policies C5 and C17. The Review Board found in favour of the applicant and the Committee then went on to approve the principle of the dwelling in Field 96. When it became apparent that a site that fells more easily within the Island Plan policies was in the ownership of the applicant the Committee refused the Detailed Planning Application on field 96. The Report from LC & ADC dated 7 October 2005reaffirms that the applicant’ agricultural circumstances have not changed since the issue of the Planning Permission in Principle and that that is desirable for him to live at the farm to manage the farm and its staff. The farm is where his buildings and equipment are and much of the land he farms is in the immediate area. Loss of agricultural land is a consideration. Land Use Implications There will be a loss of agricultural land but the applicant advises that an area of land in field 93 currently used for the storage of vehicles and farm machinery would be brought back into use if the accompanying application for a new shed is permitted. The existing farm shed would be sold to the applicant by his father if the application is successful. Size, Scale & Siting It is considered that the house is large being some 3,686 sq ft, even if it is to be screened by existing established plaiting and the provision of new landscaping. However, as part of his case the architect has identified a number of farmhouses that have been approved over the last 10 years and photographs of these and their relevant sizes will be available at the meeting. As a result of a meeting between the Case Officer and the architect, the proposed garage and workshop building measuring some 1,798 sq ft on 2 floors ancillary building has been removed from the scheme by the applicant as it cannot be regarded as a limited, ancillary building within the sprit of the countryside policies. The area of land shown as domestic curtilage has been reduced and the access track has been amended to reduce the impact on Field 97. Design & Use of Materials The house is contemporary and well designed and uses slate granite, render and timber. It is 11/2 stories high and the overall height is 8m. Impact on Neighbours The closets neighbours are the parents of the applicant and it is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on any other neighbouring properties. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations It is the intention to demolish a small roadside building alongside the existing access to the farm and to utilise this for the house and shed. Foul Sewage Disposal Drainage details are satisfactory Landscaping issues There is already some established planting and the application includes a comprehensive landscaping proposal Other Material Considerations Mr Renouf farms 180v, a lot of it is early land and therefore more commercially viable and has an established business that at present relies on potoato production. He has a yearly contract with Jersey Royal (Potato Marketing) Co. Even if the contract was not renewed he is entitled to market his crop himself, about 6 other smaller growers market their crop quite successfully. A letter has been sent from the marketing group in which they state that Mr Renouf has made known his intention to diversify and it is their intention to support and help him in whatever way they can. They also state that they have no plans at present to change their supply arrangements with the applicant. There are also letters of support from Tesco from whom the applicant has a Certificate of Conformity. This was issued following an audit of the farm confirming that Rozel Farms Ltd received a Gold Status accreditation. The working methods of the farm need continual monitoring and appraisal which would be simplified if the applicant were residing at the farm, but also confirming his commitment to meeting ever increasing standards required by today’s’ markets. This Gold Status has been awarded to Rozel Farms Ltd for the last 3 years and only 3 other farmers in the Island have obtained such accreditation this year. At the height of the season there are 5 single, non-English speaking staff on site and 3 for the remainder of the year. Whilst the applicant speaks Portuguese his father does not. His father lives in the original farmhouse but is no longer actively involved in the running of the farm. Currently he is looking into the production of pork and the growing of top fruit with John Jackson the Livestock Advisor This is dependent on him receiving permission for a new dwelling and is also why he has not actively diversified as yet. The applicant has stated that if he cannot build here he will reluctantly leave the industry. He had considered beef production but whilst waiting to obtain permission for the new farmhouse, others have started beef production and by next year there will be enough beef animals to supply the demand. The applicant had considered growing asparagus but it is extremely expensive to grow and though he carried out a lot of research into this crop he needs to do more work before making the investments. Since the original application in 2003 the agricultural advice has always been that it is desirable that the lives on site to manage the farm. In the applicants case he advises that he needs to be on site to manage the staff and farm and in particular when the daily quotas for lifting potatoes comes into force. Often the order is not issued until 9 pm in the evening meaning that the applicant needs to assemble the necessary labour and machinery for the next morning. This task is hampered by the fact the he does not live on the farm (but at Sion).
	In support of his case the applicant quotes from the Rural Economic Strategy ‘to develop a rural economy which promotes growth, efficiencies and diversification within the countryside.’ He can do this if he is living on the farm.
Recommendation	As above

Conditions/ Reasons	Agricultural occupancy

Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan Memo from LC & ADC Letters from architect Letters from applicant and his father Letter from Connetable of St Martin Letters of representation Letter from Marketing Group Letter from Tescos

Endorsed by:

Date: