Inspector alleges preferential treatment for high-value residents by Planning

Friday 04 May 2018

High-value residents may have been given preferential treatment by the Planning Department when making applications to enhance their luxury homes, an independent Planning Inspector has alleged.

Mr Graham Self said that there was evidence that “the wealth of the applicant may have been treated as a factor having some weight” in previous planning decisions, and alleged that enforcement officers may have also overlooked unlawful planning breaches.

His comments came in response to a planning appeal by high-value (11k) resident Gerald Snyman, who was denied permission to build an additional staff accommodation property near his multi-million St. Lawrence manor Malorey House, which features extensive garages to house a Morris Minor collection.  

The application argued that the proposals were supported by Locate Jersey, the States body responsible for attracting high-net-worth individuals to the island in the hope that their tax contributions and activity will stimulate the economy, but his application was ultimately turned down. 

The development was not only seen as an unnecessary addition on the island’s protected ‘Green Zone’, but the planning officer behind the refusal considered that Mr Snyman’s current residence already had enough space already to house the staff. He subsequently lodged an appeal.

Pictured: An overhead view of Malorey House in St. Lawrence. (Google Maps)

But in considering the appeal, Mr Self found that the “five-bedroom” property actually housed two additional bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms, and one of which with external access.

Moreover, those additional bedrooms may have been against the law, as a 2012 planning decision for that part of the house only gave permission for a ‘games room’ and study.  

He said that there was “no evidence” about when that extension was built, but stated that, if it did indeed come following the 2012 application: “…The development did not implement the 2012 permission and is unauthorised - its layout and function differs materially from that approved, and unless development of this type is carried out internally as well as externally in accordance with a planning permission, it is unlawful.”

He added: “The Department of the Environment has evidently not taken any enforcement action against what would appear to be a breach of planning control, and whether such action may or may not be appropriate is outside the scope of this current appeal. I do not know whether the Department inspected the completed extension to check whether it complied with the 2012 permission - I suspect not, since the officer's report on the application now subject to appeal wrongly describes Malorey House as a 5 bedroom dwelling.”

Mr Snyman’s appeal also argued that three other luxury properties owned by ‘11ks’ had enjoyed the privilege of extra accommodation: Woodside Farm, St. Peter; Highfield House, St. Clement; and Domaine de St. Laurent, located down the road from Mr Snyman’s property.

This, however, led to concerns from Mr Self that “the wealth of the applicant may have been treated as a factor having some weight in other cases.”

“…This impression is reinforced by the applicant's agent in the current case describing the appeal property as a "high networth dwelling" as if that is a material point. Be that as it may, if the precedent argument were to be treated as compelling it would mean repeating what I judge to be flawed past decisions. I do not consider that previous planning permissions have set a precedent which should now be followed,” he added.

He also wrote: "If Jersey (that is to say, the States as a whole, not just one Department) wants to promote the provision of dwellings with staff accommodation so as to encourage wealthy individuals to move to the Island, such a policy should have been included as a planning policy in the Island Plan. There is nothing in the Plan to say that Policy H9 does not apply to wealthy people; nor is there any definition of "high net worth" for the purpose of applying planning policy."

The comments were the second time that Mr Self had identified potentially unlawful behaviour in conjunction with the Planning Department within recent weeks.

In a separate appeal relating to development of a farm area named La Tache, La Grande Route de St. Ouen, he added that no steps appeared to have been taken following an apparently ignored waste disposal enforcement notice.

“Although as I have indicated the topic of waste management in Jersey as a whole is outside the scope of this appeal, I feel I should draw your attention to the evidence… that numerous waste processing sites are being operated unlawfully. If [the applicant’s] evidence is true (and it was not disputed by any other party), the implication appears to be that unlawful or illegal sites are a necessary part of Jersey's overall waste disposal requirements. For all sorts of environmental and legal reasons this seems to be an unsatisfactory situation, causing problems which are unlikely to be solved by piecemeal planning decisions on individual sites. This issue would be best investigated on a more Island-wide basis than is possible when dealing with a single planning appeal,” he said. 

Both premises were refused the right to develop by the Minister for Planning and Environment, Deputy Steve Luce, following Mr Self's reports.