Marquee dispute highlights planning law 'weakness'

Residents had to navigate complex planning legislation, the board says

A complaint about a marquee has highlighted a "significant weakness" in Jersey's planning and building law, the States of Jersey Complaints Board has found.

Residents appealing a planning application, granted in 2023, to relocate a marquee at La Mare Vineyard in St Mary, had to navigate "complex planning legislation and processes", the board said.

It also emerged planning and building law meant it was not possible to appeal applications for "movable structures".

John Moulin, deputy chair of the board, said: “In this case, residents had been completely disenfranchised at every turn, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice."

'Incorrectly advised'

The panel heard that a woman living near La Mare Vineyard wanted to complain after the company was allowed to move an existing marquee closer to her property.

The resident said the size of the marquee and the noise from it were unacceptable and, together with three other local people, made a complaint.

The government said permission to move the marquee was granted by officers without a public hearing for elected members to hear from neighbours and residents.

This, the board report outlined, was due to a "little-known decision" by the Planning Committee - and "with no particular rationale" - to raise the threshold to six for the number of representations needed to trigger a referral to a public hearing.

A planning officer speaking on behalf of the minister, told the panel the reason for this was "unclear", but added "major and contentious applications" would also be referred to the committee for determination - but that this case had been considered "minor and uncontentious".

The panel report said residents were subsequently "incorrectly advised" by the Planning Department they could submit a third party appeal - which would have triggered a review by an independent planning inspector.

However, it then became apparent there was no right to appeal against planning permission for movable structures, the board report outlined.

"There appeared to be confusion and inconsistency of approach within the department with regard to processes and statute", the report said.

The board report added that "conditions of the permit" were not enforced, having a "significant and detrimental impact on the lives of neighbours".

Mr Moulin said permission for the marquee had been granted "in perpetuity without any end date", which could result in it becoming a permanent fixture "without all the usual checks and balances".

Guideline updating advice

A planning officer told the panel permission had been granted "in good faith" and was "considered reasonable having taken into account all material considerations and representations".

On residents' inability to appeal movable structures, he referred to an "oversight" when the appeal process was introduced in 2005 and conceded the omission was "contrary to the principles of natural justice", advising this could be rectified.

Board recommendations included that the appropriate minister should consider re-defining movable structures to allow for appeals against consent.

It was also recommended that guidelines be updated and publicised for the public to navigate complex planning processes.

The board considers complaints by the public against decisions taken by ministers or civil servants within departments.

The details of hearing, which took place on 14 August 2024, have only now been made public.

La Mare Vineyard has been approached for a comment.