From Andrew Thompson.
I WOULD like to clarify a few points regarding the controversy surrounding Field 621. To build on Field 621 would be illegal.

The Planning and Building Law states categorically that permission to develop land must not be granted unless the development is consistent with the Island Plan.

Field 621 is an agricultural field and has been described as a highly rated very early-cropping potato field. According to the Island Plan, ‘there will be a presumption against the loss of agricultural fields for development or other purposes’ and that ‘any proposed development will not have an unreasonable impact on agricultural land’.

Nowhere in the plan does it state that if agricultural fields are in the built-up zone then they are ‘available’ to be developed. A cursory read of the Island Plan would inform even a lay person that all agricultural fields must enjoy the highest possible protection from development, whatever zone they happen to be in. Therefore to allow an agricultural field to be used for luxury housing would most definitely be inconsistent with the Island Plan.

It is regrettable that back in 2004, planning officers did not understand either the letter or the spirit of the Island Plan. They assumed, rather naively, that because the field was in the built-up zone, it was a potential site for developers. Because of this, they recommended to the Planning Committee, under the new chairmanship of Senator Ozouf, that the field was suitable for turning into a building site.

Unfortunately the committee, relying heavily on the advice of planning officers, indicated in writing that they were minded to allow some ‘limited and appropriate’ development of the field.

This, in a nutshell, is what the issue has been all about – the planning officers’ failure to recognise the many safeguards that agricultural fields should enjoy, their flawed advice to the Planning Committee, and the committee’s subsequent written indication to the developer.

Rather than acknowledge their mistake, however, planning officers have continued to recommend that Planning Committees (now Application Panels) approve development of the field.

Thankfully, all the committees and panels over the last six years have agreed with our arguments and have refused every development application – but planning officers have always made sure that the written refusals were based solely on the grounds of scale, design and site – not because of the fact that it is an agricultural field.

Last October, however, the panel showed great integrity and courage by making the unanimous decision to refuse any development of the field. The previous October they had made the same decision, but were forced to reword it because it was ‘contrary to the department’s recommendation’. Last November, even the minister himself endorsed the panel’s decision.

People living in the vicinity of Field 621 were overjoyed – after six years of campaigning and winning every argument, justice had at last prevailed and the original erroneous indication of 2004 had been overturned.

Or so we thought. We are now informed that the minister will not contest the developer’s appeal. He says he has to abide by the mistake that Senator Ozouf made back in 2004. Yet just a couple of years ago he told us that he is not bound by his predecessors’ decisions. Which is it to be?

To make matters worse, we have been denied the opportunity to lodge our own third-party appeal. It has come to this – developers can appeal but ordinary folk can’t, even with the law behind them.

Despite winning all the battles, and despite our legitimate expectations, we have now been told by the minister, in a somewhat dismissive manner, that ‘at the end of the day a house will be built.’

If the planning laws are to be disregarded in such a blatant fashion, we might just as well throw the Island Plan into the dustbin. In Jersey, agricultural fields and green field sites will soon be on the endangered list.

• Read more letters to the editor in today’s Jersey Evening Post