Royston Guest v Jane Guest and The Minister for Planning and Environment

JurisdictionJersey
CourtRoyal Court
JudgeMatthew John Thompson
Judgment Date10 May 2017
Neutral Citation[2017] JRC 69
Date10 May 2017

[2017] JRC 069

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi)

Before:

Advocate Matthew John Thompson, Master of the Royal Court

Between
Royston Guest
Third Party
and
Jane Guest
Appellants

and

The Minister for Planning and Environment
Respondent

Advocate R. J. McNulty for the Third Party Appellants.

Advocate D. J. Mills for the Respondent.

In attendance Mr Ellis A. J. Philp (The Applicant).

Authorities

Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002.

Planning and Building (Amendment No.6)(Jersey) Law 2002.

Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000.

European Convention on Human Rights.

Minister for Planning and Environment v Herold [2014] JRC 020 .

R. (Cummins) v Camden LBC [2001] EWHC 1116 .

Carter v The Minister for Planning and Environment [2013] JRC 227 .

R (Friends Provident Life Office) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Others [2002] 1 W.L.R. 1450 .

St Ouen v The Minister for Planning and Environment [2014] JRC 043 .

Iezzoni v The Minister for Planning and Environment [2015] JRC 030 .

2011 Island Plan.

Pomiechowski v District Court of Legnica Poland [2012] UKSC 20 .

Adesina v Nursing & Midwifery Council [2013] EWCA Civ 818 .

Barker v Hambleton DC [2012] EWCA Civ 610 .

Planning — application for extension of time to appeal against decision of the Minister.

CONTENTS OF THE JUDGMENT

Paras

1.

Introduction

1

2.

Background

2–23

3.

The Issues

24

4.

Issue 1

25–40

5.

Issue 2

41–61

6.

Issue 3

62–79

THE MASTER:
Introduction
1

This judgment represents my decision in respect of an application for an extension of time by Mr Royston Guest and Mrs Jane Guest (“Mr & Mrs Guest”) to challenge by third party appeal, a decision of the Minister for Planning and Environment (the “Minister”) to grant planning permission. The appeal filed by Mr & Mrs Guest was filed one day too late.

Background

2

Mr & Mrs Guest own a property known as ‘Le Bourg Farm’. Le Bourg Farm is a grade 4 listed building as a result of a notification issued by the Minister on 27 th April, 2016.

3

A grade 4 listing is the lowest grade. The guidance issued by the Minister defines a grade 4 building as a “buildings and places of special public and heritage interest to Jersey being good example of a particular historical period, architectural style or building type, but defined particularly for the exterior characteristics and contribution to townscape, landscape or group value”.

4

Le Bourg Farm was described as a farm house of “18/19th Century Origin retaining historic character and some original features”. The listing of Le Bourg Farm did not apply to carrying on any alterations to the interior of the property.

5

Adjacent to Le Bourg Farm is La Maison du Bourg owned by Mr and Mrs Philp. On 23 rd November, 2016, Mr and Mrs Philp applied for planning permission to develop La Maison du Bourg. The proposed development comprised a single storey extension to the south elevation and a stand-alone double garage also to the south of the property. La Maison du Bourg adjoins Le Bourg Farm on its east side.

6

On 4 th January, 2017, Mr Guest by email objected to the proposed development. His email states as follows:–

“Le Bourg is an 18th century Farm House with a rich history dating back. It is classified as a listed building/building of historical interest. Le Maison du Bourg is the adjoining property and therefore should carry the same status as Le Bourg.

  • 2. The proposed alterations fundamentally change the design of the area and affect the natural layout and beauty of this discreet enclave. Le Maison du Bourg is a beautiful 3 bedroom property in keeping with the design of the area and in my opinion its heritage and history should be respected without the proposed fundamental structural changes to the design and layout.

  • 3. Of particular concern is the proposed new garage which will actually breach the current fence and tree line. When we bought Le Bourg Farm the access rights and what could and could not be done with the approach and parking areas arc explicit. The proposed garage contravenes these rights and should be rejected outright. It will be an eye saw to the area and Spoil the natural beauty as well as affecting access rights to our property and maintaining an appropriate turning circle. There are minimum Of 3 cars parked on this at all times — sometimes 4 (see attached picture) So the proposed design is fundamentally flawed in how it will work on a daily basis.

  • 4. There were strict design laws put on the build of the property in front of both Le Bourg and Le Maison including the property being sunk down into ground and a grass roof. None of these design considerations have been considered on this proposed extensions and scope of work. The proposed alterations will sit above the fence line of our property as you look out from our patio and this is not acceptable.

For all the above reasons I request the planning application is rejected. Should I need to consult my lawyer with regard to this application to defend our rights as adjoining property owner then I prepared to follow this course of action.”

7

Planning permission was granted on 27 th January, 2017.

8

It was not in dispute that, as Mr Guest had objected to the proposed development on 4 th January, 2017, Mr Guest is a third party appellant as defined in Article 108(4) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 (the “Planning Law”), because he had an interest in and resides in land which was within fifty metres of La Maison du Bourg and prior to planning permission being granted he had made a written representation in relation to the application for planning permission. Although Mrs Guest had not made such an objection both counsel agreed this did not matter because Mr Guest did have standing to bring a third party appeal.

9

Mr Guest became aware of the decision of the Minister on 30 th January, 2017.

10

On 9 th February, 2017, Mr and Mrs Guest instructed Collas Crill to file an appeal against the Minister's decision.

11

On 10 th February, 2017, Mr and Mrs Guest were informed in writing by Collas Crill that the Notice of Appeal needed to be filed by 24 th February, 2017. I have not been provided with the advice as Mr Guest has asserted a claim to privilege.

12

Mr and Mrs Guest concede that this advice was in error because any appeal should have been filed by 23 rd February, 2017, because of the requirements of Article 112(3) of the Planning Law. Article 112(3) in so far as material provides as follows:–

“The notice of appeal must be received by the Greffier no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning

In the case of an appeal under Article 108, with the date of the decision against which the appeal is made.” (emphasis added) .

13

Mr and Mrs Guest's appeal was an appeal under Article 108 of the Planning Law so the period of 28 days started to run on 27 th January, 2017, when the Minister made his decision. Article 112(3) is clear that the first day of the 28 days period is the date of the decision itself.

14

According to Mr Guest Collas Crill also suggested that Mr and Mrs Guest instructed a planning consultant to provide an expert view on the grounds of appeal.

15

Mr Guest in his affidavit filed in support of the present application deposed that on 16 th February, 2017, he received an email from Collas Crill seeking confirmation as to how Mr and Mrs Guest wished to take matters forward, following on from Collas Crill's letter of 10 th February, 2017. Mr Guest stated this email surprised him a little because it was his understanding that “following Collas Crill's letter to me on 10 th February, 2017, that they would then proceed to prepare the notice of appeal and the grounds of appeal instruct the planning consultant Gaby Deane within good time for the deadline for otherwise filing any appeal to the Planning Decision Notice”.

16

Mr Guest then deposed that he called Advocate Gilbert at Collas Crill on 17 th February, 2017, in response to which Advocate Gilbert suggested that a call should take place on Monday 20 th February, 2017, as she was in Court on 17 th February, 2017.

17

In response to this suggestion Mr Guest deposed that he was out of the Island on 20 th February, 2017, and therefore proposed a call with Advocate Gilbert on 22 nd February, 2017, when they spoke in relation to the appeal. He specifically stated at paragraph 18 of his affidavit “nobody from Collas Crill wished to speak with me sooner. Given the deadline for filing the notice of the grounds of appeal, I had assumed (wrongly it would now seem) that Collas Crill would have been taking all steps necessary to protect our interests in respect of any appeal, including seeking assistance from Gaby Deane within a reasonable period of time as suggested on 10th February, 2017”.

18

The planning consultant was instructed on 22 nd February, 2017, and Mr and Mrs Guest received her preliminary advice on 23 rd February, 2017, with the notice of appeal being filed on 24 th February, 2017.

19

By an email dated 24 th February, 2017, Mr Nathan Wilczynski the Manager of Appeals and Tribunals Service, emailed Advocate Gilbert and stated as follows:–

“I have just received a planning appeal for La Maison du Bourg and unfortunately the appeal has not been submitted in time.

The decision notice is dated 27 th January, 2017, and you have 28 days to make an appeal day one being the decision date. So the 28 day deadline was 23 rd February, 2017, your appeal was received today on day 29. I have no grace to extend the deadline so the appeal will be lodged as invalid and subsequently rejected.

I have contacted you by email to make you aware of the decision as the post for today has already gone and I am out of the office all day Monday so you will not receive the official letter until Wednesday.”

20

On 3 rd March,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Simon John Richardson v The Minister for the Environment
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 4 Noviembre 2020
    ...The Applicant appeared in person. Authorities Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Guest v Minister for Planning & Environment [2017] JRC 069. Herold v Minister for Planning and Environment [2014] JRC 020. Gupta v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 38 (admin). Barton v Wright Hassell I......
  • Simon John Richardson v The Minister for the Environment
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 4 Noviembre 2020
    ...for the Environment and James [2020] JRC 232. Civil Proceedings (Jersey) Law 1956. Guest v Minister for Planning and the Environment [2017] JRC 069. Planning — judgment on costs COSTS JUDGMENT THE MASTER: 1 This judgment follows on from my substantive judgment in this matter dated 4 th Nove......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT