Webb -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2012] JRC 107 (30 May 2012)

Webb -v- Minister for Planning and Environment [2012] JRC 107 (30 May 2012)

The Minister's decisions to grant planning permission for both Les Brisants and Greenhaze were not unreasonable. For Les Brisants, the development complied with the 2011 Island Plan, achieving a reduction in visual impact and improvements in design and amenity. For Greenhaze, although the 2011 Island Plan's requirement for reduced visual impact was not met, the procedural history justified approval under the 2002 Island Plan, which did not require such reduction. The Minister properly considered all relevant policies, procedural fairness, and site-specific factors. There was no failure to consider protected species, excavation risks, or neighbouring amenity to a degree that rendered the...

Citation
[2012] JRC 107
Parties
Appellant: Mr Webb; Appellant: Mr Grimshaw; Appellant: Mr Stear; Appellant: Mrs Mayne; Respondent: Minister for Planning and Environment; Applicants: Applicants for Les Brisants and Greenhaze
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Planning Law Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Article 114 of the Planning and Building (jersey) Law 2002
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Development Control, Island Plan Interpretation, Replacement of Buildings, Environmental Impact, Protected Species, Excavation Risks
Planning Law Administrative Law Environmental Law Procedural Fairness Development Control Island Plan Interpretation Replacement of Buildings Environmental Impact +2 more

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Webb

Appellant

Mr Grimshaw

Appellant

Mr Stear

Appellant

Mrs Mayne

Appellant

Minister for Planning and Environment

Respondent

Applicants for Les Brisants and Greenhaze

Applicants

Procedural Posture

Planning Law Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Under Article 114 of the Planning and Building (jersey) Law 2002

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's decisions to grant planning permission for demolition and replacement of two dwellings complied with the 2011 Island Plan, particularly Policy NE6 (Coastal National Park) and related policies.
  2. 2 Whether procedural fairness required consideration of the 2002 Island Plan due to administrative delay.
  3. 3 Whether the developments would cause unacceptable visual impact, intensification of use, or harm to protected species or neighbouring amenity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister's decisions to grant planning permission for both Les Brisants and Greenhaze were not unreasonable. For Les Brisants, the development complied with the 2011 Island Plan, achieving a reduction in visual impact and improvements in design and amenity. For Greenhaze, although the 2011 Island Plan's requirement for reduced visual impact was not met, the procedural history justified approval under the 2002 Island Plan, which did not require such reduction. The Minister properly considered all relevant policies, procedural fairness, and site-specific factors. There was no failure to consider protected species, excavation risks, or neighbouring amenity to a degree that rendered the...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Planning permissions for demolition and replacement of Les Brisants and Greenhaze upheld.