Subject-Matter Index

Appeals

factors to be considered

when hearing appeals against decisions of Island Development Committee, court to consider (a) Committee’s permission sine qua non of proposed development; (b) Committee may grant planning permission in outright terms or reject it; (c) whether, if application within ambit of relevant Detailed Development Plan, Committee considered factors in Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.17; and (d) whether Committee construed relevant policies on common sense, straightforward basis, with regard to underlying purpose and context: Grangehurst Ltd. v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [24]

finding of reasonableness

Jurats to determine whether Island Development Committee’s decision reasonable, i.e. not so irrational that no sensible person applying mind to matter would have arrived at it—not to substitute own decision for Island Development Committee’s if consider Committee’s decision mistaken but still within reasonable range: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Lainé (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 385

under Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, ss. 16–17 (unless s.18(1) applies), decision of Island Development Committee to conform to Detailed Development Plan, e.g. Rural Area Plan—on appeal, Jurats to consider reasonableness of Committee’s position on individual policies of Plan on which decision founded, as well as reasonableness of decision itself: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Lainé (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 385

unreasonableness—decision of Jurats as matter of fact that Committee decision reasonable conclusive even though by majority—minority disagreement not to be taken as indicative of possibility of unreasonableness: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

jurisdiction

despite absence of specific provision in Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, Court of Appeal has jurisdiction under Court of Appeal (Guernsey) Law 1961, ss. 13–14 to hear further appeal from Royal Court sitting as Full Court on appeal against decision of Island Development Committee: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

existence of express provision for appeal from Royal Court to Court of Appeal in comparable statutes (providing for appeals from States Committees) no bar to such appeal under Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, which contains no such provision—no reason for appeal from Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.26(1) to go straight to Privy Council: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

right of further appeal from Royal Court to Court of Appeal available under Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966 even though not expressly provided—not barred by lack of express provision even though contained in other comparable legislation: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

right to appeal

third party objecting at open planning meeting not “applicant” under Land Planning and Development (Guernsey) Law 2005, s.68 with right to appeal when objection rejected—may be granted access to court (as required by ECHR, art. 6) since fairness requires right to proceed further—judicial review appropriate remedy: Groucutt v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 406

third parties. See Appeals—right to appeal. Planning permission—third party objections

Change of use. See Development—change of use

Delay. See Judicial review—delay

Development

appeals. See Appeals

change of use

domestic accommodation

if Rural Area Plan allows for development only in certain circumstances, necessary inference that domestic development outside terms of Plan prohibited—not possible for applicant to rely on absence of prohibition as reason that Island Development Committee should consider granting planning permission: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

relevant policies under Rural Area Plan to be read as coherent whole so as not to render any particular policy provision meaningless: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

under Rural Area Plan (Phase 1), development of areas of landscape value limited to agricultural, horticultural, recreational or tourism—domestic development not permitted—former horticultural land illegally made into domestic garden by previous owner not to be treated as opportunity for further domestic development of land, even if development falls within curtilage of dwelling—curtilage not extended by illegal creation of garden: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Lainé (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 385

“infill” developments—Rural Area Plan limits residential development in built-up areas not designated for residential development to “infill” developments comprising one or two properties—applications for “infill” developments to be considered on merits and not possible to rely on absence of prohibition to justify Island Development Committee allowing “infill” development of 10 properties: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

tourist accommodation

application to change use to permanent residential accommodation not to be treated on own merits in isolation—consistency in decisions and regard to wider implications, e.g. important to maintain sufficient tourist accommodation: Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [8]

property not “surplus accommodation” under Strategic and Corporate Plan 2005, Policy 7 unless Environment Department decides to permit change of use in accordance with Rural Area Plan—only required to consider Strategic and Corporate Plan if change permitted—application strengthened if applicant provides evidence of need for change and extent to which it would satisfy need: Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [8]

rebuttable presumption in Rural Area Plan that change of use from hotel to permanent residential accommodation not permitted—although Plan dated, has same weight as when first brought into use, despite different circumstances in industry: Grand Havre Holdings Ltd. v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2005–06 GLR N [8]

consideration in context

although open market residents not normally granted housing licences, exception may be justified as proportionate, e.g. if States’ planning development policy forces long-term resident out of home, cannot afford other open market property, strong Guernsey familial connections, and granting licence sets only limited precedent for other open market residents: Campbell v. States Housing Auth. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 367

in cases falling under Rural Area Plan (Phase 2), only strictly necessary for court to consider individual development policy concerned, but helpful to consider other policies under Plan, since appropriate to interpret individual policy in context of Plan as a whole: Barrett v. Island Dev. Cttee. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 152

in determining whether to grant planning permission, Island Development Committee to construe relevant policies on common sense and straightforward basis, with regard to underlying purpose and context—if proposed development within ambit of relevant Detailed Development Plan, to consider factors in Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.17: Grangehurst Ltd. v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [24]

in giving reasons for refusing proposed development, if Island Development Committee expressly or implicitly precluded from considering application because falls outside ambit of relevant Detailed Development Plan, to state so unambiguously: Grangehurst Ltd. v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [24]

may apply States development policy to housing licence decisions, but policy to conform with law, not modify, extend or contradict, and Authority to be prepared, if appropriate, to make exceptions: Campbell v. States Housing Auth. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR 367

policies in Detailed Development Plans implicitly provide entire planning regime into which application must be fitted—Island Development Committee may not exercise discretion to grant permission for development if falls outside ambit of relevant Detailed Development Plan: Grangehurst Ltd. v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 2000–02 GLR N [24]

erection of structures

permission to “re-erect” structure not inherent in permission to “erect” under Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.14(1)(b)—separate and distinct operations requiring separate and new planning permissions, even if original erection demolished, destroyed or taken down: Bird v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 272

under Rural Area Plan (Phase 1), development of areas of landscape value limited to agricultural, horticultural, recreational or tourism—domestic development not permitted—former horticultural land illegally made into domestic garden by previous owner not to be treated as opportunity for erection of domestic building, even if development within curtilage of current dwelling—curtilage not extended by illegal creation of garden: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Lainé (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 385

factors to be considered

under Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.17 (unless s.18(1) applies), Island Development Committee to consider (a) Strategic and Corporate Plan and relevant Detailed Development Plans; (b) effect of development on natural beauty of area; (c) whether development incongruous with surroundings; (d) if agricultural development, suitability of land; (e) extent to which development would detract from character or amenity of locality; and (f) effect on roads, traffic, services, public health, parks, playing fields and other open spaces: Island Dev. Cttee. v. Portholme Properties Ltd. (C.A.), 2000–02 GLR 417

horticultural development

“essential ancillary works”—large building part of proposed development not “essential ancillary works” if developers express unequivocal intention to process products from other sites: Barrett v. Island Dev. Cttee. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 152

“infill” developments. See Development—change of use

planning permission. See Development—erection of structures. Planning permission

preliminary declarations

in deciding whether preliminary declaration validly made, essential question whether Island Development Committee entitled to conclude, on basis of information before it, that proposed development complies with relevant policy, thereby providing gateway to full planning permission—declaration may not be properly granted if Committee not requested or seen sketches or elevations of proposed building, or drawings of visual impact from important vantage points: Barrett v. Island Dev. Cttee. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 152

in order properly to form prima facie view that requirements of Rural Area Plan (Phase 2), Policy HT 3 will be met, Island Development Committee must have clear information about redevelopment at time of making decision: Barrett v. Island Dev. Cttee. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 152

since preliminary declaration is indication that planning permission likely to be granted, Island Development Committee to form prima facie view on factors in Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.17, including effect on natural beauty of area, extent to which development would detract from character or amenity of locality, and effect on roads, services, public health, parks and adjoining properties: Barrett v. Island Dev. Cttee. (C.A.), 2003–04 GLR 152

Horticultural development. See Development—horticultural development

“Infill” developments. See Development—change of use

Judicial review

delay

although guideline for “prompt” commencement of proceedings is maximum 3 months from decision to be reviewed, court always to consider whether too long—in circumstances of individual case, 10 weeks may be more than ample time to commence review of decision, allowing time to consider alternatives, gather information, communicate between advocates, etc.: Groucutt v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 406

Open planning meetings. See Appeals—right to appeal

Planning permission

benefit of land

permission enures for benefit of land, despite subsequent change of ownership—benefit may cease if works completed or duration of permission expires: Bird v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 272

change of use. See Development—change of use

expiry of permission

although not possible to abandon valid permission capable of being implemented, permission expires when works fully implemented—subsequent continuation of works requires new permission: Bird v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 272

permitted period for works

by Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966, s.16(3), works to be carried out within permitted period—Department’s practice of allowing later completion of works commenced within permitted period merely concession to enable completion—not intended to permit commencement of new work without permission: Bird v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2007–08 GLR 272

personal circumstances of applicant

normal rule that not to be considered but in exceptional cases may be sufficiently pressing to justify treating as specially relevant—on appeal, Jurats to be particularly directed on exceptional nature of decision to consider relevant—burden on applicant to establish exceptional personal circumstances: Environment Dept. (Minister) v. Johns (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 174

prohibition of challenge

Land Planning and Development (Guernsey) Law 2005, s.75 prohibits challenge to “permission”—by interpreting so as to make Convention-compliant (Human Rights (Bailiwick of Guernsey) Law 2000, s.3), “permission” limited to final permission document—preliminary resolution of Board at open planning meeting may be challenged: Groucutt v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 406

third party objections

third party objecting at open planning meeting denied right to pursue objection in court because not “applicant” for planning permission—access to court required by ECHR, art. 6 since fairness requires it—judicial review appropriate remedy: Groucutt v. Environment Dept. (Minister) (Royal Ct.), 2015 GLR 406

Planning policy

change of use. See Development—change of use

development. See Development

erection of structures. See Development—erection of structures

horticultural development. See Development—horticultural development

Prescription. See Prosecution of offences—prescription

Procedure for decision

consideration of relevant matters

refusal of permission

Property development. See Development. INCOME TAX (Income or capital—adventure in nature of trade)

Prosecution of offences

prescription

no prescription period for prosecution and trial of planning offences—Island Development (Guernsey) Law 1966 contains no prescription period, none implied and court unable to create one—customary criminal prescription period of year and day formerly applicable to “minor crimes” (with no affinity to planning offences) now in disuse: Bach v. Law Officers (C.A.), 2007–08 GLR 354

Refusal of permission. See Procedure for decision—refusal of permission

Third party objections. See Planning permission—third party objections

Tourist accommodation. See Development—change of use