Application approved because the considerations were addressed

From Jamie Le Sueur, managing director, Antler Homes Jersey.

MR BLACKSTONE is quoted in respect of the Camellia Cottage planning decision (JEP 31 January) as saying ‘Approving an application identical to the one which has been quashed by the Master of the Royal Court makes a mockery of the legal process in the Island.’

Either Mr Blackstone hasn’t fully read the judgment of the Royal Court or he hasn’t understood what was being asked for. The judgment is very clear and the design of the buildings in our scheme was not raised as an issue.

The Master quashed the decision of the minister because he considered a number of material considerations had not been addressed. Those considerations were set out in paragraphs 46 to 49 of the judgment and are summarised as follows:

The minister failed to consider whether Camellia Cottage could be retained. In particular, the Master was concerned that no inquiries or reports had been required or provided as to the state of the cottage or the possibilities of its refurbishment. The Master was also concerned that the minister had been given the wrong construction date of the building.

The Master also considered that no proper consideration had been given as to whether Camellia Cottage should be replaced by one building and not three.

There was also no proper consideration given as to the requirements and express terms of Policy BE3 of the Island Plan 2011 (Green Backdrop Zone). The Master considered that a number of points with regard to BE3 had not been addressed:

It was not clear from the application whether the natural landscape would have remained the dominant element in the scene;

No regard/consideration seemed to have been given as to the possibility of retaining any established trees on the roadside of the site;

The proposals for replanting seemed to be a requirement on the new houses themselves, and the Master was concerned as to whether what was proposed constituted retaining the natural landscape as the dominant element or protecting the green backdrop;

And the Master was also concerned that regard had not been made to the preamble to policy BE3.

Finally, the Master believed that policy GD5 (skyline, views and vistas) had not been considered as there was no reference to that policy in the evidence.

The rationale of the judgment is clear.

The decision was quashed because the above matters were outstanding. The decision was not quashed on the merits of the application. It is therefore perfectly lawful for the same application to have been made and, provided the relevant considerations were taken into account by the minister, for the minister to have approved the decision.

I can confirm that Antler Homes provided a considerable number of additional reports and landscape drawings and erected a scaffolding profile of the proposed houses at the request of the minister to enable him to reach his decision. Both Antler Homes and the minister have taken full account of the legal process in the Island.

Mr Blackstone’s comments are misleading and factually incorrect.