A BATTLE between a St Brelade parishioner and a developer seeking to build luxury flats next to his home reached the Royal Court yesterday as ministerial approval of the scheme was challenged.
Stan Markland, co-chairman of logistics business Ferryspeed, launched his attempt to overturn the decision to grant planning permission for four luxury apartments, made earlier this year by then Environment Minister Steve Luce.
Advocate Nuno Santos-Costa, representing Mr Markland, said neighbours of the site at Mont Gras d’Eau had a right to privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their properties.
He described the effect of the decision to allow the development by Southern Traders as “devastating” for those living nearby, leading to the devaluation of adjacent properties and another neighbour putting their house on the market.
The court heard that after the initial application was refused and an appeal was lodged by the developer, a planning inspector’s report had concluded that the proposed scheme would unreasonably affect the privacy of neighbours, and that the refusal should be upheld. This conclusion was supported by the Environment Minister in a decision issued in October 2024.
A revised application was described by Advocate Santos-Costa as having “some tweaks” but being “essentially the same”. Planning permission was granted, prompting a third-party appeal by Mr Markland, which led to a second report by a different planning inspector.
This resulted in a different conclusion: that the privacy issues were no longer a reason to prevent the scheme going ahead, with the minister agreeing with the inspector granting planning permission in February 2026.
While Advocate Santos-Costa there was nothing wrong in different inspectors reaching different conclusions, or with a minister changing their mind, there was a clear legal obligation for reasons to be given and that in this case the minister had come “nowhere near” meeting this requirement.
“If this is how these momentous decisions are made, we are all in trouble because [those making the decisions] don’t have to justify anything,” he said.
Advocate Duncan Mills, representing the Environment Minister, said that there had no longer been an unreasonable impact on neighbours’ privacy from the second application as a result of changes that had been made.
These included, he said, enhanced measures for screening on the boundaries of the site and changes to second-floor balconies, which would no longer be wrapped around the sides of the apartments but would only face southwards, with frosted screens at each end to limit views of neighbouring properties to the east and west.
Details about the changes in the second inspector’s report provided an “sufficient, intelligible and adequate” explanation about why the decision to maintain the approval of planning permission had been made, Advocate Mills said.
On behalf of Southern Traders, Advocate Marcus Pallot said the company supported the arguments made on the minister’s behalf. Mr Markland was effectively seeking to appeal against the merits of the scheme, he added, and this attempt should be rejected.
Having presided over the hearing, Commissioner Sir Timothy Le Cocq reserved the court’s judgment and said it would be delivered at a later date.
