Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2006]JRC091

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

30^th June 2006

Before     :

Sir Philip Bailhache, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Le Breton and Morgan.

The Attorney General

-v-

Fosse Au Bois Growers Ltd

And

Barette Plant Hire Ltd

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, on the following:

Fosse Au Bois Growers Ltd

4 charges of:

Contravention of Article 9 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 (Charges 1, 2 3 and 4).

Barette Plant Hire Ltd

1 charge of:

Contravention of Article 9 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 (Charge 1).

Plea: Infractions admitted.

Details of Offence:

Fosse au Bois Growers Limited was granted two development permissions which respectively authorised the extension of an existing agricultural shed at Fosse au Bois Farm, and the construction of a second new agricultural shed.  Both permissions were subject to various conditions which were designed to protect the neighbouring properties from noise and light pollution.

Despite the conditions being fully and clearly explained to the owner of the company, the extension of the existing shed was carried out without a landscaping scheme being properly implemented (Charge 1) and without a lighting scheme being approved (Charge 3).  The result was that planting which was supposed to screen the development from neighbours was not undertaken and light pollution caused problems at night.  There were many complaints.

In relation to the new development, this was also commenced without either the necessary landscaping scheme having been agreed (Charge 2), on a site usage plan agreed (Charge 4).  Whilst the relevant area of land had been prepared by the company for the construction of the new shed, the company had subsequently put its plans on hold, and was in the meantime using the area for storage.  The shed (which was sited in the Green Zone) had only been agreed by Planning on the basis that the company's large amount of agricultural plant and equipment could be stored out of sight inside it.  However, the opposite effect had actually been achieved by the company, in that without the required planting in place to provide screening for the neighbouring residential properties, the whole area had become an eyesore.

Despite being warned about the breaches on several occasions, the company did nothing to remedy the problem for over a year, until a summons was issued.

Barette Plant Hire Limited was engaged by Fosse au Bois Growers Limited to prepare the hardcore base for the new shed.  It brought onto the farm a stone crusher and imported a large quantity of rock in order to make the said hardcore base.  However, whilst the use of the rock crusher was authorised as being incidental to the construction of the shed, Barette Plant Hire also began using it to crush and export hardcore to other building sites around the Island.  Approximately 15 to 20 lorry loads were exported.  The company did this without the knowledge of Fosse au Bois Growers and despite an express warning issued by the Planning Department.  In doing so, Barette Plant Hire changed the use of part of the farm into a commercial rock crushing enterprise.

During subsequent interview the owner of the company admitted that he was able to save paying tipping charges at the reclamation site by operating in this way.

Details of Mitigation:

Fosse au Bois Growers Limited

Admitted infractions (although this was to be expected); as an independent grower, the company has suffered financial difficulties due to the new potato marketing scheme; remorse; plans now submitted to satisfaction of Planning and planting to be undertaken this year.

Previous Convictions:

None

Conclusions:

Charge 1:	£1,000.00 fine
Charge 2:	£1,000.00 fine
Charge 3:	£2,000.00 fine
Charge 4:	£2,000.00 fine

Total fine:  £6,000.00

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Charge 1:	£750.00 fine
Charge 2:	£750.00 fine
Charge 3:	£1,250.00 fine
Charge 4:	£1,250.00 fine.

The company had proceeded in a cavalier attitude with regard to the landscaping scheme.  Such deliberate failures to comply with conditions cannot be allowed, although the Court felt able to reduce the Crown's conclusions.

Total fine £4,000.00 (with an order for costs not exceeding £1,000.00).

Barette Plant Hire Ltd

1 charge of:

Contravention of Article 9 (1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964 (Charge 1).

Plea: Infractions admitted.

Details of Offence:

See Fosse Au Bois Growers Limited above.

Details of Mitigation:

Admitted infraction; owner was co-operative during interview; remorse; the company had had difficulties obtaining permission for the permanent siting of the crusher. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

Charge 1:

£2,000.00 fine

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:

£1,000.00 fine (with an order for costs not exceeding £500.00)

C. M. M. Yates, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. M. Livingstone for Barette Plant Hire Ltd.

Advocate M. P. Renouf for Fosse Au Bois Growers Ltd.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Court will deal first with the infractions which have been admitted by Fosse au Bois Growers Limited which is a company owned by Mr Lambert Carré and his family.  The Company has admitted four infractions of the Planning Law which, as the Crown Advocate has rightly conceded, are not at the most serious end of the scale of offending. 

2.        Nonetheless there has in the judgment of the Court been a cavalier approach to the conditions which were attached to the development permission requiring the Company to mitigate the effects of the development by landscaping and providing a suitable scheme to prevent light pollution from causing aggravation to neighbours.

3.        Despite numerous reminders the defendant company has failed to comply and has effectively cocked a snook at the Planning Authorities.  The Court cannot allow such deliberate failures to comply with the Planning Law to go un-redressed. 

4.        In mitigation the defendant Company has at last complied with the planning conditions and we have been told by Counsel that the Company will comply fully with the requirements of the planting scheme in the forthcoming planting season.

5.        The defendant Company has admitted the offences.  It has been pointed out that the defendant Company has considerable commercial difficulties at the present time and we understand and sympathise with the difficulties with which some growers at present are faced.  Looking at the matter in the round we think that fines totally £4,000 will meet the justice of the case.

6.        The defendant Company is accordingly fined on Charge 1, £750; on Charge 2, £750; on Charge 3 £1,250; on Charge 4, £1,250, making a total of £4,000 and the defendant Company is ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution not exceeding the sum of £1,000.

7.        Turning next to Barette Plant Hire Limited the defendant Company has admitted a quite deliberate breach of the Planning Law in that it knew that permission was required to export crushed material from the Fosse au Bois site, but nevertheless carried on doing that work without the permission of the Planning Authority. 

8.        Again the Court cannot allow such an approach to Planning Rules which (whether we like them or not) are designed to protect the environment, to go unpunished. 

9.        Having said that we have a great deal of sympathy for small enterprises such as that operated by the defendant Company.  They have an important job to do and have to operate within strict planning controls.  We express the hope that, had the defendant Company approached the matter differently, the Planning Authority might have been able to demonstrate some measure of flexibility so that what the defendant Company actually did, could have been done lawfully with the benefit of a permission speedily and effectively delivered.

10.      Nonetheless, as we say we have to punish the defendant Company for his admitted breach of the law.  Again it was fully co-operative with the authorities admitting the infraction and made a clean breast of matters.  We think the offending can be met by a fine of £1,000 which we impose and we order the defendant Company to pay the costs of the prosecution not exceeding £500.

No Authorities