IT was third time unlucky this week for smallholder Jenni Riggall when Environment and Public Services rejected her plans for a new agricultural unit.
Ms Riggall, who addressed the committee, said the refusal left her upset, annoyed and convinced the planning appeals system is unfair.She was appealing against a refusal to allow her to create a sheep and poultry farm and apple orchard in Fields 24 and 26 Rue de la Vignette, St Saviour.
She also wanted to build a two-bedroom cottage on the 23-vergée site.In June last year similar plans for a site in St John were also rejected.Planning said they decided to maintain the refusal for the St Saviour site because there was insufficient justification to approve it and approval would be contrary to Island Plan policy relating to new development in the countryside.Ms Riggall said: ‘At the appeal I provided substantial extra information together with a new report from Agriculture supporting the house and farm.
I also pointed out that in the Island Plan, exceptions to the countryside zone could be made in the case of “”suitable proposals for agricultural diversification”" and as such it is has also been approved and supported by the Economic Development Committee.
‘I do not believe that the appeal system in Jersey is fair.
Of the four committee members present, two of those were from the applications sub-committee that turned it down, leaving only two members remaining for a fresh hearing - not enough for a majority decision.
It is hardly fair.
‘The committee will not entertain requests to reconsider a decision more than once, so I am not able to appeal again even though they are going to be reviewing the rural development policy.
Neither can I appeal to the Administrative Appeals Panel because even if they decide my case is justified, it still goes back to the same Planning committee.
Where’s the logic in that?’
Article posted on 27th March, 2004 - 12.00am
Most Commented: