- Royal Court orders Environment Minister revokes planning approval granted to Sea View Investments Ltd,
- Second David versus Goliath court battle win for grandmother in as many years
- Comment – read what the JEP thinks below
PLANNING permission for a development of flats on the Island’s east coast is to be cancelled after a grandmother won her second ‘David versus Goliath’ court battle in as many years.
The Royal Court has ordered that Environment Minister Steve Luce revoke last year’s planning approval granted to Sea View Investments Ltd, which had been planning to redevelop an area near Keppel Tower in Route des Sablons, Grouville.
The order followed the second successful third-party appeal against the plans by Mary Herold (87), who lives at Seymour Cottage, a historic property close to the proposed scheme.
In 2014 Mrs Herold lodged an appeal, which the court upheld, against the 17-home development and the plans were returned for reconsideration by the then Environment Minster, Rob Duhamel. Following that decision, the developers resubmitted an amended version of the scheme, which went on to be approved.
However, Mrs Herold, who said that the resubmitted plans still had a negative impact on her home and the surrounding area, appealed through the Royal Court again Mrs Herold, who was represented by her grandson, Greg Herold-Howes, a trainee solicitor at Viberts law firm, said it had been ‘wonderful’ to secure a second successful appeal.
She said that the revised proposals had still been too big for the area. ‘We are expecting more plans to come forward, but they are going to have to be very much changed to protect my house,’ she said. ‘The whole thing has been a slow and frustrating process, but I am glad I have undertaken it. It was worth the effort. If a thing is wrong, it is wrong, and must be put right.’
Mrs Herold also thanked neighbours, friends and family for their support over the past few years.
Mr Herold-Howes added: ‘I think this sets an interesting precedent for people who live in a historic property. The important thing for people living in a listed building is that if there is a development they do not agree with, the wording of the relevant Island Plan policy is very strict. It says that if a development does not preserve or enhance the environment or setting, then it will not be approved.’
Grouville Deputy Carolyn Labey said that the parish had supported Mrs Herold’s appeals since 2012. ‘This is a victory for taste, common sense and the community,’ she added. ‘What was proposed was a menagerie of flats that dwarfed Mrs Herold’s cottage.’
DEVELOPER and development are often dirty words in Jersey – and it is not hard to see why. The past 50 years or so have provided too many examples of inappropriate and ugly buildings which jar with the natural or built environment in which they are situated.
The cinema, club, bar and restaurant complex on the Waterfront is just one example among many which has fuelled the widespread public distrust of the planning system and suspicions that money opens doors which are closed to ordinary householders wanting to convert their attics or build modest extensions.
Islanders have been left wondering where they can turn to stop history repeating itself.
An answer to that perennial question was finally given this week – and it is the right one. Justice and due process, avenues which should be open to all citizens, have put common sense and community before profit and self-
interest.
The hero of the story is Mary Herold, a grandmother from Grouville, who appealed to the Royal Court against a planning decision to allow the building of a large block of flats near Keppel Tower. She argued that the scheme would dwarf her historic cottage and would have a detrimental effect on the coastal area. It was a David and Goliath battle and she won.
The Royal Court has restored a sense of perspective to a planning process which had lost its way.
As Mrs Herold’s grandson Greg Herold-Howes, who represented her in court, is reported as saying, the Island Plan is clear: development should preserve or enhance the environment or setting. Development which fails to meet that criteria should not be approved.
So what has gone wrong? Who has interpreted these words in such a way as to leave the Island with a lasting legacy of spoilt environments and inappropriate developments?
Jersey needs homes and there is an appetite for well-designed, modern properties which can sit as comfortably with their setting as any quaint granite farmhouse. Appropriate development enhances the Island and can be used to build community and improve people’s quality of life.
This week’s court ruling needs to be a line in the sand, a day when the tide turned against those who would put profit before common sense.
