THE Environment Department remains committed to “community mediation” and “prioritises resolution” after the States Complaints Panel heavily criticised the amount of time taken to act on Islanders’ concerns about the operations of a cannabis farm.
Earlier this year, the Panel found that the Infrastructure and Environment Department took an “unreasonable” amount of time to act on nuisance complaints regarding noise and smell.
Environment Minister Steve Luce has now responded to the report stating that while he “found issue with the majority of the Board’s findings”, he had accepted three out of the four recommendations and had taken action beyond the recommendations of the board.
In an official ministerial response, Deputy Luce said: “The minister instructed officers to undertake a thorough re-assessment of odour and redactions applied to representations and in both cases is satisfied with the actions taken by officers.
“The minister prioritises resolution and community engagement, and sincerely believes
that if all parties can positively engage with community mediation we can find ways
that will support the wider community to live and work together in a more harmonious
way.”
The matter considered by the Complaints Panel, chaired by Geoffrey Crill, centred around the Infrastructure and Environment Department’s “handling and lack of regulation” regarding retrospective planning applications made by Northern Leaf, as well as enforcement and noise abatement notices that had been issued to the company.
The complaints panel 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.
Deputy Luce, in his response, said: “The minister instructed officers to undertake a further, detailed odour assessment involving a greater number of officers to assess whether a statutory nuisance exists.
“The conclusion of this investigation established statutory odour nuisance is not
occurring at an intensity, frequency, persistence or prevalence to be considered of a
threshold which would be prejudicial to health or a nuisance. It is important to note that
odour was present on the majority of visits to the site. However, the mere presence of
an odour does not constitute a statutory nuisance, and the assessment criteria must be
considered.
“The directorate has undertaken a thorough examination of the odour complaints and
discharged its statutory duty to investigate matters. Whilst the minister recognises that
the complainants do not agree with the assessment, this matter is now considered closed.
A new investigation could be opened, only if there is a material change in circumstances.”
He added that the department had responded to emails summarising concerns and responses “within ten working days” and that nine updates had been provided to concerned residents between 16 June and 2 September.
“The directorate remains committed to timely responses and constructive dialogue.
Officers are working diligently and in good faith to support the community, and the
Government of Jersey expects all communications to be conducted respectfully”, he added.
The complainant, referred to as Ms X, said that she felt the department 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”.
Deputy Luce, in response, said: “The minister prioritises resolution and community engagement, and sincerely believes that if all parties can positively engage with community mediation we can find ways that will support the wider community to live and work together in a more harmonious way.”
