Campaigners against development in Field 621: Andy Thompson, Senator Sarah Ferguson, Constable Mike Jackson and Deputy Angela Jeune. Picture by Richard Wainwright (00732799)
DESPITE five rejections from Planning, another attempt to build on a field in the green zone has been submitted by the owner.
Developer David Sheppard, who controversially demolished Janvrin’s Farm in Portelet without Planning permission in 2000, has applied for ‘in-principle’ Planning permission to build a home on Field 621 in St Brelade.
He has been trying to build on the plot along Route de Noirmont since 2003 and he has had plans for two houses, and then one, refused a number of times.
Residents in the area, backed by Deputy Jackie Hilton and Senator Sarah Ferguson, have successfully campaigned against development on the field.
But next-door neighbour Andy Thompson is concerned after another application went into the Planning last week.
Article posted on 4th July, 2009 - 2.57pm
31 Article Comments
We all know what happened at Janvrin’s……
the rules don’t seem to phase this guy at all…
Report abuse
I don’t know all the facts in the case of Janvrin’s Farm but I can say at the time it seemed strange this developer was not made to reinstate what was effectively the Island equivalent of a Grade 1 listed building in the UK.
Even more strange, I believe he was eventually allowed to go on and develop the site afterwards? I am therefore more surprised that the planning Minister is prepared to accept any further plannning applications from this source, let alone one involving building on Green Zone land?.I do wonder what the reaction of the UK local authority planner’s would have been if this person had driven a bulldozer through Wordsworth’s Cottage in the Lake District or Shakespeare’s in Stratford upon Avon? I suppose there is a case that the States failure to have a clear cut scheme to protect such buildings, or their failure to enforce what legislation there is was a contributary factor.It is just possible if they had such arrangements we might not have lost alot of the older part of St Helier to Cyril le Marquand House! Quite what poor Cyril did to have a building modelled on a nuclear bunker and a multi storey public convenience named after him I don’t know?The retiring Bailiff better be careful, they may yet refurbish the Aircraft Hanger at Fort Regent that housed the old swimming pool!
Report abuse
The NIMBY’s are out in force, if there’s a vacant field next door to your home and you don’t own it then you have to expect that it may be developed.
I would prefer that this man was not sucessful because of the total disregard for our laws but someone will build on the plot at some point.
We need homes for our children, if everyone adopted the “not in my back yard” approach we’d never build any houses.
Report abuse
I dont know whether (3) Keith above is including me in his NIMBY comment, but my objection is like him to people who set out to deliberately flout the Planning laws. Whilst there have been some pretty awful mistakes made in the past I personally can see the need and indeed have high praise for some recent developments, which I confess, before they were built I had reservations about. Included in this is the development that replaced the Catholic Church at Millbrook,the flats that replaced the old TOC H building behind Howard Davis Park, the houses just built on the left just along from there towards the Tunnel, and the Flats opposite them. I am an admirer of our new bus station which seems very suitable for purpose, and of the open square where the buses used to be.Liberation Square is also a success story with the reservation that the deserted former Tourist Office deserves a better fate than as a fast food restaurant.There are positive aspects to the marriage of old and new at the Yacht Hotel in that it encourages greater use of outdoor space and preserves some interesting older architecture.I have even grown to see some positive aspects to that Hotel out on the Marina!One of which is that the outside paint scheme is in keeping with it’s Fort Regent granite backdrop as you approach from the West, which is more than can be said for Norman’s building!And I still can’t get used to the former BA building on the left of the Tunnel entrance, despite some imginative up dating by the current occupiers which are certainly an improvement.One thing I beg the Planning Minister not to do is be persuaded into building anything above the current height of buildings on the reclamation site around the Ferry Terminal and the marina. Anything of height built to the South West of St Helier will shorten the sunshine hours of everything to the North East of it i.e. most of “Al Fresco” St Helier, old and new!
Report abuse
Nick 4 – I agree with much of what you say and I certainly don’t think that all applications should be given approval. The issue I have is when an objection is immediately raised to a reasonable proposition because it would potenmtially devalue or in some way make less attractive the existing properties.
Usually the objection will be on asthetic ground when the real reason is one of selfishness ie – I want to keep the nice view out of my kitchen window.
States planning have to balance the need for housing with the conservation of genuine places of beauty/interest, this of course is entirely subjective and the nub of the issue.
Normans by the way – what were they thinking. The idea that a decorator’s merchant who will advise customers on paint have shown such poor judgement in their own decorative adornment – or did they just have a pallot of yellow paint they couldn’t shift?.
Report abuse
Keith if you pay market value for a property with a sea view or a country view you don’t expect it to be got rid of do you? It is about time these developers compensated people who have their houses devalued by their building works. This is only fair don’t you think?
Jersey needs to control its population it cannot keep on like this can it? I know people over here don’t want to live in a concrete jungle just so that developers can have a field day to supply houses to people just off the boat.
As per Janvrin’s farm I couldn’t believe what happened there. If I had been in charge I would have demanded the origonal cottage be rebuilt and nothing more. I believe this would have made developers think twice in future about doing things. I personally believe that planning is far too soft on big developers.
Report abuse
Well its good to see that jealousy, envy and small mindedness are thriving nicely in Jersey.
Report abuse
Janvrin’s Farm in Portelet should have been rebuilt. The “system” which allowed this is either ignorant or corrupt.
Report abuse
It seems that planning is ultimately on side with maverick developers, who seek to make a fast buck whenever they can, by flouting the law and continually submitting new applications, even when there have been five previous rejections, as in this case.
Report abuse
What is the point of having “Green Zone” areas if developers can build on them?
Report abuse
Jersey needs more homes? Take a look at the property pages of the JEP and tell me why we need more building – I have never seen so much property for sale. Why if there is a such a demand?
Report abuse
Adrian 6 “Keith if you pay market value for a property with a sea view or a country view you don’t expect it to be got rid of do you?”
On the contrary, unless you check with the planning dept to ensure that permission will never be granted for the site you have to assume that at some point it will be developed, you are paying for the property not the surrounding area.
I agree that in an ideal world people would be compensated for losing the view but in reality since they do not own it, why should they. As always Adrian, I commend your stance on how things should be but alas, that’s not how it is.
You would hope that planning would retain areas of natural beauty but without a guarantee you would be foolish to make the assumption, anyone who has seen Location, Location, Location would know this.
As for the comments regarding Janvrins Farm – something is not right here. How has he not only gone unpunished but been permitted to continue to submit applications?
Report abuse
Keith, I agree with you regards the view, If you want the view to remain untouched the only way to ensure that is to buy everything you can see, and hope there will not be a land reclamation scheme.
Ref Janvrines farm. I believe at the time of its demolition a loop hole in the law said one needed permition to build/rebuild, but had no say on demolition. Hence Mr Shepherd was not prosecuted for this act of wilful vandalism on his own property.
Morally I believe he was as guilty as hell, but sadly not legaly. So as this application is for a different site I Believe it should be decided upon as a one off in its own rights.
Report abuse
Is that like saying it is o.k. for the Russians to murder the chechins en masse ,as they’ve illegally murdered elsewhere but that is not the same…?
Report abuse
Keith as you well know what views you have from your window has a big impact on its sale price doesn’t it? if someone pays top notch with a sea view then surely they should be compensated for loss of value to their property without the sea view?
I think this is only fair don’t you, especially if you may have been told that nothing will be built in front of you? So yes as the surrounding area impacts on a property’s price then should it be degraded by new buildings for the present occupants then yes they should be compensated in my view, no pun intended.
Report abuse
Mr Sheppard seems to be a man that sees obstacles as a challenge rather than an end.
So you can be sure that as long as he owns the land in question he will keep submitting applications to build on it till eventually someone authorises it…..
Developers in Jersey only see the bottom line which is the money they will make.
When the states let him get away with knocking down Janvrin farm and others are able to burn down churches with no consequences’ why should they think they should change their ways.
Report abuse
Adrian, if you choose to pay a premium for a property with a view you do so knowing that you may lose it, unless you have a written guarantee to the contrary.
The view is a privelage not a right, who would compensate you, the previous owner of your house? the owner of the field? the developer? why should they, you chose to buy a house with an undeveloped plot in front of it, if you did so without a guarantee that it would not be built upon then more fool you, your surveyor should have made this perfectly clear before you purchased.
Unless you own the land you have no right to say what happens to it.
Report abuse
Planning only have two enforcement officers anyway so people can do pretty much what they want without much chance of being caught.
On the occasions that someone does get caught developing without permission it is very rare indeed that retrospective permission is not granted.
Absolutely pointless and toothless department.
Report abuse
7 Fred: Don’t understand your comment? most of the observations made seem perfectly reasonable to me.
Adrian: You have a point about seaviews being used to add a premium to properties and in a way this has a bearing on my comments about the height of buildings on the land reclaimation site.The best planning rule that could be followed here would be to enforce a rule about the taking of “natural light”.Any building so overbearing it places it’s neighbour in “Permanent Shade”should not be permitted without the express permission of the owners of the building so effected. As for “Seaviews”that is more difficult, as with foresight, if history repeats itself, then the idea of a barrage from La Collette to Noirmont and infilling (reclaiming) St Aubins Bay for future housing does not seem to be beyond the realms of possibility in some people’s thinking!If you looked some years ago you would have seen mooring rings in the wall of the Town Church in Bond Street!However there does seem to be a selfishness in building great tower blocks right on the sea shore to the detriment of everything inland of them.I despair that the opportunity to prevent this happening has again been missed at Havre des Pas. When the La Plage was a Hotel at least the public had access to it and therefore arguably the seaview beyond. Private Flats are a whole different ball game.And great blocks of flats with parking are all very well but the infrastructure around them,especially roads, need to be able to deal with the increased volume of traffic and activity!
PJG: I am afraid I am probably a little more vindictive than you, this person knew what he was doing and what he had purchased when he bought Janvrin’s Farm and quite deliberately committed a gross act of vandalism to profit from it. If I was in charge, this person would have to go elsewhere to be “A property developer”.
As for the burning down of the Historic Methodist Chapel in St Helier, I always thought that building would have made an Ideal Art Gallery and cultural centre for the Island, and a scheme could have been agreed for that and some sympathetic flat type development which would have been the best way forward?It would be interesting to know the history of past planning applications there, as it might cast some light on why the property was empty and derelict for so long before suddenly and catastrophically combusting! Strange it should suddenly have done that?
Oh and before anyone forgets, there is another building about to vanish that the States did make noises about preserving and which is quietly being removed: The genuine 1937 Airport Terminal building (Probably one of the first of such buildings in the world) that lies hidden beneath a whole load of 1960-2000 asbestos add ons that have been used as an excuse to permit it’s demolition. Shame our airport will now have all the architectural history and appeal of ? well not even a properly designed modern airport building, more B & Q (Just about anywhere you find one).It would have even been worth resiting this historic building, without it’s asbestos add ons (But plus the viewing decks)as a tourist attraction, particularly for air displays and rallies.
Report abuse
I reckon this guy is working on the principle that if he just keeps submitting applications eventually people will get tired of objecting (it takes time and effort after all) and apathy will set in. Apathy has probably let a lot of rubbish buildings go up in Jersey!
It should be ‘3 applications’ for that site from the same person getting rejected and then they are not allowed to submit anymore.
Report abuse
Keith,
You made the comment:
“Normans by the way – what were they thinking. The idea that a decorator’s merchant who will advise customers on paint have shown such poor judgement in their own decorative adornment – or did they just have a pallot of yellow paint they couldn’t shift?. ”
This may be an urban myth, but I had heard that the reason for the paint job was because they had a planning application to erect a sign to advertise their presence turned down. So, ever resourceful, they effectively turned their whole business into a sign. It shows how people adapt their behaviour to legislation, something everyone should always remember.
As far as this development is concerned, no way. The basic principle in Jersey (as told to me by my architect) is that you cannot demolish a house that is struturally sound. As a result I had to extend my 1930s house when it would have cost the same to put a Huf-Haus in its place. So that policy cost me personally.
It seems to me that a perfectly good house sat on that plot and it is unclear why, by demolishing a house before he had lodged plans for a new one, this developer should be able to sidestep that policy. So no, if he wants a house, he can put back the one that was there before.
Report abuse
Keith and Nick have obviously have a lot of free time on their hands and no doubt own property on “The Rock” give yourselfs a rest will you.
Report abuse
Keith, I have heard of a pallet of yellow paint but never a “Pallot” of yellow paint.
Are you referring to a brightly coloured variety of a well known Jersey name?
Report abuse
Keith, I reckon you need the NIMBYs (once I worked out what they were
). Surely the best situation is to have those strongly for, those strongly against and a good spread of those in the middle. The more people that consider a plan the more chance there is of someone realising something that the applicant or the States have possibly missed when reviewing the proposal.
If a plan is a good one and is needed then the NIMBYs won’t be able to stop it (rightly so although I do sympathise with their plight), however, their nay-saying may temper a plan that is quite unreasonable and get it turned into one that is perfectly reasonable. That way everybody ‘wins’.
I know this is Jersey commenters can often be of the kind that immediately hate and abuse anyone who disagrees with them but I don’t understand that at all. If a subject matters (as planning issues do to those affected by them) then I think the wider the spread of views that are heard the better, and the more likelihood of a middle ground being reached.
Report abuse
Go down Le Hocq lane if you want to see a nice Jersey lane ruined.
And no I dont live there, in fact nowhere near there…for the forums NIMBY haters
Report abuse
22 Alex – “Keith and Nick have obviously have a lot of free time on their hands and no doubt own property on “The Rock” give yourselfs a rest will you.”
Mate if you don’t like my posts don’t reaad em, also it’s yourselves not yourselfs.
Bovril – “Keith, I have heard of a pallet of yellow paint but never a “Pallot” of yellow paint.
Are you referring to a brightly coloured variety of a well known Jersey name?”
I’d like to tell you that it was a play on words referring to Rodney Pallot the Norman’s director who sanctioned the colour scheme – but I’d be lying. It’s a typo that I spotted after i’d posted.
Leah excellent point although I should say as others previously have that this forum is a source of entertainment for me and not everything I say should be taken seriously. I understand that I am not alone in this regard.
Report abuse
Keith you are a gentleman.
The play on words would have been very subtle! Hats off to you for admitting that it was a typo and not a rather clever “in joke”!
Report abuse
Keith, you’re most definitely not alone in that regard
Report abuse
Oh let them build, the place (Jersey) is turning into a dump anyway and at least it will improve the stock of housing instead of the grime and deprivation which the housing law perpetuates
Report abuse
jersey does not need any more homes,what is does need is an effective immagration policy.
Report abuse
30 Mick – couldn’t agree with you more, why do they resist effective immigration control. The quals system doesn’t work, the 5 year rule is a joke, why don’t we only allow those in who would benefit the island and grant them immediate locally qualified status.
Thst way we could cherry pick the best. 20 years ago Guernsey had a policy in place to prevent anyone with a criminal record entering the island, surely this is the bare minimum.
Sorry off topic I know but a valid point.
Report abuse