THE fate of a medicinal cannabis farm in St Lawrence is uncertain after an application to build a sound-dampening enclosure over noisy chillers that neighbours say have ruined their lives was rejected by the Planning Committee.
Northern Leaf, which owns the medicinal cannabis production plant at Retreat Farm, had sought retrospective permission to install the chillers – which are essential to the operation of the business – as well as enclose them in special material and cladding to reduce the noise to a level deemed acceptable to Environmental Health.
In getting permission, the firm hoped that an enforcement notice issued in January last year – ordering the chilling plant machinery to be stripped out and ‘mega-block’ walls to the north and south to be demolished – would fall away.
But with planning consent being refused by the narrowest of margins – with the Planning Committee’s votes tied 3-3, resulting in a negative determination – it means the enforcement notice remains ‘live’.
Northern Leaf had appealed the January 2024 enforcement notice, but their appeal was rejected by an independent planning inspector last August.
The firm then appealed that decision to the Royal Court, with a hearing scheduled for March this year. However, those proceedings were discontinued just days before the court date, meaning that Northern Leaf had six months from 13 March to comply with the order.
This means, as it stands, Northern Leaf has until next weekend to “deconstruct the plant machinery” which has been there for four years without permission.
In refusing the application on Thursday, the committee went against the Planning’s Department’s recommendation that it should be passed.
This was on the basis that the dampening, which would involve building a 50m x 13m steel frame over the chillers supporting special noise-reducing panels, would reduce the sound to no more than five decibels below background levels.
The department also proposed a condition that the work must be carried out within three months of approval.
Northern Leaf was represented at the committee meeting by its chief operating officer Cameron Dunlop, who was unequivocal on the importance of the machinery to Northern Leaf: “No chillers, no production,” he said.
Asked if he believed that the three-month deadline was achievable, Mr Dunlop said it would be, as long as external factors outside of the firm’s control did not intervene.
“We will do our best to comply with the timeline,” he said.
However, those politicians who voted against the application were unconvinced.
One of them, committee chair Constable Philip Le Sueur, expressed his disappointment that Northern Leaf had not presented more details about the scheme at the meeting.
“This all seems to have been done on a wing and prayer,” he said.
Some residents who live close to the farm also spoke at the meeting, all against the application.
Alexa Sinel said that the application was a “backdoor retrospective move to get permission for the chillers” from an applicant which she said was “mocking” the committee.
“If you give this permission for this, you give them a green light for multiple small developments which ultimately creates one large one,” she said.
Asked by the JEP what the refusal meant for Northern Leaf, Mr Dunlop said he would be talking with the firm’s board straight away.
Thursday’s committee meeting determined six applications from Northern Leaf in total. The other five all passed. These were less contentious and were all unanimously approved. They included retrospective permission for a new shed, landscaping to hide external pipes and the extension of an existing roof to screen machinery.
