Smith -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2009] JRC 093 (14 May 2009)

Smith -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2009] JRC 093 (14 May 2009)

The decision to grant planning permission for the south-east extension was unreasonable because the Assistant Director failed to appreciate, due to lack of a site visit, the significant risk to the boundary hedge and consequent loss of privacy and amenity for the appellants. The risk of hedge loss and the proximity of the extension to the boundary rendered the decision contrary to Policy G2. The north-east extension did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness.

Citation
[2009] JRC 093
Parties
Appellants: Mr and Mrs Smith; Respondent: Minister for Planning and Environment; Developer: Prime Estates (High View) Limited
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Third Party Planning Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Under Modified Procedure (rcr 15/3 B)
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Unreasonableness Standard, Amenity Impact, Site Visit Requirement, Policy Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission Unreasonableness Standard Amenity Impact Site Visit Requirement Policy Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr and Mrs Smith

Appellants

Minister for Planning and Environment

Respondent

Prime Estates (High View) Limited

Developer

Procedural Posture

Third Party Planning Appeal / Judgment After Hearing Under Modified Procedure (rcr 15/3 B)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decision to grant planning permission was unreasonable under Article 109(1) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002
  2. 2 Whether proper regard was had to the appellants' representations
  3. 3 Whether the decision contravened Island Plan Policies G2 and G3

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to grant planning permission for the south-east extension was unreasonable because the Assistant Director failed to appreciate, due to lack of a site visit, the significant risk to the boundary hedge and consequent loss of privacy and amenity for the appellants. The risk of hedge loss and the proximity of the extension to the boundary rendered the decision contrary to Policy G2. The north-east extension did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • The Minister's decision to grant planning permission for the south-east extension is quashed.
  • The Minister is directed to cancel the planning permission for the company's application as it relates to the south-east extension.