Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2003]JRC056

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

21^st March, 2003

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

David Gindill;

Judith Montgomery Gindill (née McFaden)

 

David Gindill

1 count of:

Contravening Article 8(1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964, as amended by developing and making a change in the use of land from agricultural to domestic use without development permission.

 

Age:     50.

 

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

Defendants owned a property and an adjoining field.  They applied unsuccessfully to construct an alternative driveway over the field.  Their applications come to nothing.  They then constructed an alternative driveway without permission.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Good character and service to the community.  Frustration with Planning Office.  Did not realise permission was needed.  No demand for field for agricultural use.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

£3,000 fine to be paid jointly and severally by both Defendants or 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment; £1,000 costs.

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Virtually every one who deals with the Planning Office becomes frustrated at some stage or another.  That does not justify taking law into one's own hands.  Court could not believe defendants did not realise need for permission, given their previous applications for permission.

 

£5,000 fine to be paid jointly and severally by both Defendants or 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment; £1,000 maximum costs, jointly and severally.

Judith Montgomery Gindill (née McFaden)

1 count of:

Contravening Article 8(1) of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964, as amended by developing and making a change in the use of land from agricultural to domestic use without development permission.

 

Age:     54.

 

Plea:    Facts admitted.

 

Details of Offence:

See David Gindill above.

 

Details of Mitigation:

See David Gindill above.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

See David Gindill (above)

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

See David Gindill (above).

 

 

Solicitor General.

Advocate M.L. Preston for D Gindill and for J.M. Gindill (née McFaden)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        The Defendants applied for permission to construct a driveway in 1995, but encountered difficulties with the Agriculture and Fisheries Committee which at that stage was opposed to the plans.  Subsequently the application was withdrawn.  Other discussions appear to have taken place in the interim, but it is admitted that in October, 2002, the Defendants constructed a new driveway across the field adjacent to their property without any reference to the Planning Authorities whatever.

2.        It is difficult for us to accept that the Defendants were unaware that planning permission was required having regard to the history of a failed application not many years before.  The Solicitor General described this as a blatant breach of the Planning Law and we think that that is an accurate description.

3.        Our judgment is that the Defendants became frustrated with the position in which they found themselves, and decided that they would have their own way.  The Defendants have admitted the infraction, and we fully accept that they are of good character and have made many contributions to the good of the community in a number of different ways.

4.        We have taken account of the excellent references provided which testify to their honesty and good standing in the community.  We have given full weight to all that but we cannot condone the notion that obligations under the Planning Law can be ignored when they are inconvenient. 

5.        In our judgment the conclusions, notwithstanding the submissions made by counsel for the Defendants, are in fact too low.  We might, left to our own instincts, have imposed a much higher fine, but we will restrict ourselves to increasing slightly the conclusions moved for by the Solicitor General; and the Defendants are accordingly fined, jointly and severally, the sum of £5,000 with an alternative of 3 months' imprisonment in default of payment, and we order the Defendants to pay the costs of the prosecution not exceeding £1,000.  The Defendants have one month in which to pay the fine.

Authorities

A.G.-v- Richards (27^th August, 1999) Jersey Unreported; [1999/146].

A.G. -v- Benest (11^th June, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/119].