JFU President: ‘States should allow land owners to build houses on derelict glasshouse sites’

  • Land owners should be allowed to build houses on derelict glasshouse sites, says Jersey Farmers Union president
  • Planning should be more flexible and allow development on the green sites, says Graham Le Lay
  • Several glasshouse sites have been unused for more than 20 years
  • Should land owners be allowed to build on glasshouse sites? Take part in our poll below

LAND owners should be allowed to build houses on derelict glasshouse sites in an effort to remove the eyesores which are blighting the countryside, a leader of the Island’s farming community has said.

Graham Le Lay, president of the Jersey Farmers Union, has called for greater flexibility from Planning to enable growers to use the proceeds of a modest new build to cover the cost of returning the rest of the site to agricultural use.

Currently there is a planning presumption against building on redundant glasshouse sites in the green zone.

Graham Le Lay

However, the cost of removing such structures – about £150,000 per acre (2.4 vergées) – is deterring land owners from clearing the sites if they do not have any potential return.

‘If the States want to see these sites cleared they have got to be flexible in what they allow on them,’ said Mr Le Lay.

‘I am the first to admit that some of these sites in the green zone should not be developed, or have 30 to 40 houses built on them.

‘But if a grower is allowed to build a modest house in the area – or on land he owns somewhere else – that is a situation where there should be a bit more flexibility all round.

‘Then these sites would be cleared.’

Mr Le Lay said the States, which encouraged the tomato growers to expand during the industry’s heyday, should help farmers to remove glasshouses that are no longer viable now the exporting business has collapsed.

‘We must never lose site of the fact that these growers lost their industry because of States policies to withdraw help from the industry some ten years ago. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, some of these growers were encouraged to replace their glasshouses with modern ones and they never thought the modest help they received would be withdrawn.

‘Lots of growers did modernise, spending a lot of money and the help was withdrawn,’ he said.

La Mare Carnation Nursery glasshouses, GrouvilleGlasshouses are expensive to dismantle and remove

The problem of what to do with disused glasshouse sites has been around for 20 years.

While larger sites in built-up areas where development is permitted have been replaced with housing, sites remain in rural locations where there is a presumption against development.

In the States today, the Constable of Grouville, John Le Maistre, was due to ask Environment Minister Steve Luce what he intended to do about unsightly glasshouses that spoil the Island’s landscape.

Mr Le Maistre said the States should allow limited development to regain agricultural land.

‘We need a carrot and stick incentive as we can’t just expect them to clear the sites at their own expense. Planning should allow some development on a site or another so they can clear the rest of the site. The problem has been around for a long time and we need to do something as we can’t let it carry on,’ he said.

An image of the proposed development off Rue de la Retraite in St Saviour

LUXURY homes proposed for redundant glasshouse sites will not be approved ‘as a matter of course’, the Environment Minister said in January after designs for a countryside mansion were revealed.

Reminding Islanders of the strong presumption against redeveloping former agricultural land, Deputy Steve Luce stated that applications for such projects required exceptional benefits for the environment.

His comments followed the publication of images of a multi-million-pound house that is due to be built on former agricultural land in St Saviour off Rue de la Retraite, close to the junction with La Fréminerie.

Under the scheme – the outline permission for which was granted several years ago when Environment Minister Freddie Cohen led the department – a 12-bedroom house which is 19 times larger than the average Jersey home is to be built.

It includes a dining room and art gallery, a home theatre, infinity pool, a large games room, gym, a wellness spa complete with jacuzzi, sauna and steam room, bars, a wine store, dumb waiter and an internal lift.

Distancing himself from the historic decision to approve the project, Deputy Luce said: ‘This is a 2009 decision under previous Environment Minister Freddie Cohen. A decision was taken at that time to help the agricultural situation in the area.

‘An initial set of plans was put forward and over the course of time it developed into something else. I am aware that it is quite different from what was originally planned.

‘This is still a valid and legal decision and we move forward from that point.’ Deputy Luce explained that initial approval may have been given as it was felt that developing the site, which contained run-down glasshouses, and returning parts of the area for agricultural use were preferable to leaving the unused buildings in place.

Deputy Luce added: ‘Our policy is still that redundant greenhouse sites don’t simply get changed into luxury homes without exceptional circumstances. ‘Former Senator Cohen had a particular style as Environment Minister that included a great emphasis on architecture and design. My ministerial approach will hopefully be more rounded – a common-sense approach to make sure that buildings are good inside as well as out.

Tony Pike

ANGRY?… No, furious would better describe how I felt when I heard in January that a luxury house was to be built on a former glasshouse site in St Saviour.

Why? Well, I’ll tell you. Many years ago, when dear old Freddie Cohen was Environment Minister, I made an inquiry to his department about building a house at our family’s farm in St Brelade.

Once upon a time, a greenhouse sat on the land in question. It had blown down in the Great Storm of 1987, but was not rebuilt as my parents-in-law had long since retired.

After a couple of phone calls, a planning officer came to the farm. He listened while I outlined what we had in mind.

Then he looked at me with a half-grin and said: ‘No, you will not be allowed to build a property where that greenhouse once stood. It would be in the green zone and contrary to the Island Plan.’

I pointed out that my brother-in-law had been able to build a home on adjacent land some thirty years before and that we were looking to mirror the design and scale of his property, but to no avail.

He said that agricultural land was sacred – even if the land in question had ceased to be of any use to agriculture.

Glasshouse sites could not be built on unless there was a change in policy. With that, I thanked him for his visit, realising that we were not going to be able to do anything about it.

Making an expensive application that was going to be refused would be a waste of time and money.

Since then, there have been many incursions into this so called ‘green zone’, with the backing of the Planning department.

But what really got my goat this year was the revelation that plans for a luxury mansion in St Saviour had been passed on Senator Cohen’s watch, even though this too was on agricultural land in the green zone.

And get this, it was on an ex-greenhouse site and passed at the very same time that I had made inquiries about building a humble home in St Brelade.

What was the difference, I am asking myself today?

Was it that my wife and I happen to be Jersey born and bred? Or was it because a very wealthy gentleman who does not even live in the Island had more rights to build than us?

I am sure we are not the only family which feels that the Planning department have had double standards.

I would really like some honest answers about how they could approve such a huge development and refuse ours.

The way I see it, money talks louder than any Island Plan.

– Advertisement –
– Advertisement –