WHAT started as an investigation into concerns about noise and smells – raised by neighbours of a medicinal cannabis cultivator – has now seen a senior civil servant level serious accusations at the independent watchdog that handles public complaints about the government.
Infrastructure and Environment chief officer Andy Scate claimed the States of Jersey Complaints Panel had overstepped “the boundaries of its remit” and fallen short of “procedural fairness”.
He made the comments after the Panel upheld a complaint about the Infrastructure and Environment Department’s handling of retrospective planning applications and statutory nuisance complaints relating to medicinal cannabis cultivator Northern Leaf.
An “unreasonable” amount of time
In a damning report accompanying the decision, the Panel found that the department took an “unreasonable” amount of time to act in relation to concerns about the company’s operations at Retreat Farm.
The 17-page document records the grievances of a complainant – referred to as ‘Ms X’ – who challenged the department’s “handling and lack of regulation” regarding various retrospective planning applications made by Northern Leaf, as well as enforcement and noise abatement notices that had been issued to the company.
Last year, the medicinal cannabis firm was told to remove certain equipment from its premises after Environment Minister Steve Luce rejected an appeal against an enforcement notice served by the department.
The notice followed a string of objections from angry neighbours spanning several years, with former Environment Minister Jonathan Renouf acknowledging in 2023 that residents had been raising the issue “for a considerable period of time”.
Ms X claimed that the department had failed to enforce any regulations on the company or issue any penalties in respect of the breaches of the formal notices and on the site itself, despite the “incessant noise” and “pungent” odours.
The report said Ms X “felt the department had assisted Northern Leaf in making retrospective planning applications” and that it had shown “a lack of regulatory professionalism in dealing with the many complaints made by herself and residents against the operational aspects of the company”.
It added: “The collective feeling was that neighbours were not receiving the support of the department, and that there was little understanding of the impact that the issues had caused, and that this was in breach of their legal rights.”
The Panel, chaired by Geoffrey Crill, found that the department had taken an “unreasonable” amount of time to act in respect of odours emanating from the site.
It also criticised the department’s application of a so-called “sniff test” threshold, which “placed an unreasonable burden of proof on complainants”, as well as delays in bringing forward an abatement notice for noise and any action in relation to the odours.
But Mr Scate, who has been the Infrastructure and Environment Department’s chief officer since 2021, accused the Complaints Panel of “multiple factual inaccuracies”.
“Our responsibility is to uphold Jersey’s regulatory framework”
In a statement, he said that the department did not accept the findings presented in the report.
“We completely refute the suggestion that the department acted contrary to the law or behaved in a way that was unjust,” he continued.
“Our responsibility is to uphold Jersey’s regulatory framework fairly and impartially. That means acting in the interests of all parties, residents, businesses and the wider community.
“We maintain the integrity of the planning and regulatory system, this requires striking a careful balance between the rights of individuals and the legal rights of businesses to operate.”
Mr Scate stressed that, in the case of Northern Leaf, a number of enforcement and noise abatement notices were issued and that “clear regulatory action” was taken in response to the concerns raised.
“We stand by our actions taken, ensuring that our interventions lead to meaningful and lasting improvements for those affected,” he added.
“This has been a complex and high-profile regulatory case involving a substantial investment of resources of more than ten officers over a four-year period and over a thousand hours of focused effort.”
Mr Scate continued: “We do not accept the view that more could or should have been done.
“Our team has acted at all times with diligence, professionalism and within the scope of legislation.”
He also claimed that the department “was not afforded the opportunity to participate fully in the Panel’s hearing process”, arguing that the alleged absence of a right to reply or clarify key information was “disappointing” and “does not reflect principles of procedural fairness”.
“We believe the Panel continues to overstep the boundaries of its remit, particularly in matters relating to professional judgment and legal process. We will be considering this aspect further as part of our response,” he stated.
The JEP contacted Northern Leaf for comment but did not receive a response before going to print.
