THERE are “significant weaknesses” in Planning legislation, a complaints board has found after a St Mary resident was unable to challenge a decision allowing a marquee to be put up 56 metres from the home she had occupied for 27 years.
The woman could not appeal against the decision to allow La Mare Vineyard to move the marquee – which created “intolerable noise” according to the resident – because “an administrative oversight” meant rights of appeal against planning decisions did not apply to “temporary structures”.
The States Complaints Board also found the permission granted by the Planning Department – which had no end date – meant the “temporary” structure could ultimately become a permanent fixture.
It said: “There appeared to have been little consideration of the impact … on neighbouring amenities. The granting of permission in perpetuity meant that the opportunity to monitor the impact of the use in the revised location had been lost.
“The board was of the view that such a decision could not have been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of all the facts and having regard to the representations which had been received.”
The resident told the board that La Mare Vineyard was granted planning permission in 2015 for the marquee more than 100 metres from residential properties as “a reception area for visiting guests on pre-booked coach parties when the weather was inclement”.
But last year they applied for permission to move it to a position much closer to neighbours.
Four objections were made to Planning, including three from local residents, but this was not sufficient to trigger the automatic involvement of the Planning Committee, comprising a group of politicians, and permission was granted by officers under delegated powers.
Although the resident, Mrs N Hay, had been told she could submit a third-party appeal, it transpired not only that her property was six metres too far away to permit such an appeal but also that the law did not allow for appeals involving temporary structures.
This left her “feeling completely disenfranchised by processes and legislation which prevented her from being heard at every step”, the board stated.
Mrs Hay described noise from the marquee – which had no sound proofing – as “intolerable” and the board heard that conditions attached to the permit “did not appear to be enforced by the department”.
Her complaints were corroborated by another local resident who argued that granting permission for a structure that was in place for three-quarters of the year effectively meant that a permanent structure had been approved “without any of the necessary checks and balances”.
Explaining the department’s approach, Planning officer Richard Glover said it was unclear why the number of representations required to trigger involvement of the Planning Committee had been increased but he said the matter would have been referred on if it had been deemed either “major or contentious”.
He accepted that a time-limited permit might have presented an opportunity to assess the impact on neighbours of the revised location.
Upholding the complaint against the Environment Minister, the board noted that there appeared to be “confusion and inconsistency of approach” within the Planning Department and it recommended updated guidance be produced to cover all aspects of the planning process to improve accessibility and transparency.
“When members of the public received incorrect procedural advice, this had a detrimental impact on the level of service expected and often resulted in a loss of confidence in government administration,” it added.
Asked whether he would amend the law in the light of the board’s findings, Environment Minister Steve Luce said he required time to consider the matter but he confirmed he would respond in the States within the 12 weeks required by States’ Standing Orders.
