THE decision to hold a planning inquiry into the proposed development of the Water’s Edge Hotel could be quashed after the Royal Court found there was ‘at least an argument’ that the Environment Minister had made a decision months before calling the review.
Plans to transform the dilapidated Bouley Bay hotel into a luxury house, while allowing the nearby dive centre to continue to operate, have been submitted and were recommended by Deputy John Young to be made the subject of an independent inquiry.
However, while the Environment Minister’s decision to call for the planning inquiry was recorded on 1 October, the court heard that two months earlier he had emailed officers to say that, in view of the public response and importance of the Coastal National Park, he was ordering a planning inquiry. ‘Please acknowledge and confirm my instruction. Not negotiable,’ the minister wrote.
He went on to send a second email the following day giving what he called an ‘extra reason’ which he said related to the conduct of the chair of the Planning Committee. ‘Phil [Trinity Constable Philip Le Sueur] going on radio and promoting the development this morning. He declared an interest and indicated an intention to withdraw but, as chair of the Planning Committee, the perception and probably the reality is it was intended to influence decision and personally consider it unwise.’
Sitting alone as a single judge to determine whether to grant leave for a judicial review of the minister’s decision, the Bailiff, Timothy Le Cocq agreed that there was at least an argument that the minister had pre-determined his decision.
‘At the very least it does seem that the expression “not negotiable” requires in the context of this matter some explanation,’ Mr Le Cocq said in his judgment.
The exchanges discussed in court highlighted the difference in views of the Environment Minister and the chair of the Planning Committee over the proposals to replace the Water’s Edge Hotel with a luxury single dwelling.
Mr Le Sueur, who had emphasised that he would not take part in any decision, told the minister that ‘the vast majority of parishioners who attended the open viewing… at the parish hall and with whom I have spoken prefer this latest proposal’, and he questioned whether it constituted a departure from the previous Island Plan in force at the time.
However, the minister lamented the loss of tourism on prime sites in the Coastal National Park and pointed to emerging policies in the Island Plan to prevent uncontrolled loss. ‘Residential is one thing but dedicating such to high-net-worth people [sic] has potential for major impact on the community,’ Deputy Young responded.
WE (Jersey) Ltd, the company applying for permission for a legal review of the minister’s decision to call in the planning inspector, argued that the minister had misinterpreted or misapplied the criteria for calling in a planning application; had purported to exercise his powers by reference to irrelevant considerations; and/or had predetermined his decision two months before he received oral advice from officers.
Upholding the application for a judicial review, the Bailiff said that had the minister’s decision stood alone and had it been supported by a written report or at least a full note of an oral report, he might have taken a different view but this was not the case.
‘In my judgment the matter has crossed the threshold for an application for judicial review and I grant leave to WE to bring an application seeking to quash the decision.
‘When evidence is filed the contents of the oral report will presumably be clear,’ the Bailiff said.
