Planning and Environment v Le Maistre [2002] JCA 129 (11 July 2002)

Planning and Environment v Le Maistre [2002] JCA 129 (11 July 2002)

The Planning and Environment Committee's refusal of development permission was not unreasonable; the presumption against non-agricultural development in the Agricultural Priority Zone was not rebutted by the applicant's arguments, and the Royal Court erred by substituting its own view without sufficient justification.

Citation
[2002] JCA 129
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Richard David Le Maistre; Defendant/appellant: The Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
11 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed (majority); Royal Court's order set aside.
Legal Topics
Development Permission, Island Planning (jersey) Law 1964, Unreasonableness Standard, Agricultural Priority Zone Policy
Administrative Law Planning Law Development Permission Island Planning (jersey) Law 1964 Unreasonableness Standard Agricultural Priority Zone Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard David Le Maistre

Plaintiff/respondent

The Planning and Environment Committee of the States of Jersey

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of development permission by the Planning and Environment Committee was unreasonable under Article 21 of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law, 1964
  2. 2 Interpretation and application of Policy CO6 of the Island Plan regarding non-agricultural development in the Agricultural Priority Zone

Ratio Decidendi

The Planning and Environment Committee's refusal of development permission was not unreasonable; the presumption against non-agricultural development in the Agricultural Priority Zone was not rebutted by the applicant's arguments, and the Royal Court erred by substituting its own view without sufficient justification.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (majority); Royal Court's order set aside.

Orders

  • Royal Court's direction to grant development permission for a bungalow or other domestic building is reversed.
  • No development permission to be granted for the site.