Islanders who claimed to have endured “unbearable noise” and “disgusting smells” from a neighbouring medicinal cannabis farm were let down by the government department meant to protect them, a complaints body has ruled – but officials are refusing to accept the criticism.
A damning report from the States Complaints Panel found that the Infrastructure and Environment Department took an “unreasonable” amount of time to act on nuisance complaints about Northern Leaf’s operations at Retreat Farm.
But in a strongly-worded statement, Chief Officer Andy Scate said the Department would not be accepting the Panel’s findings – and went to far as to accuse the watchdog of overstepping its remit.
It comes after Northern Leaf was last year told to remove certain equipment from the site after failing to successfully appeal against a planning notice.
The complaint
Published today, the States Complaints Panel’s report explains how a complainant – referred to as ‘Ms X’ – challenged the Infrastructure and Environment Department’s “handling and lack of regulation” regarding various retrospective planning applications made by Northern Leaf, as well as enforcement and noise abatement notices that had been issued to the company.
The fact that no precedents existed should not have prevented action from being taken by the Department
complaints panel chair geoffrey crill
She claimed that the Department had failed to enforce any regulations on the company or issue any penalties in respect of the breaches of the formal notices and on the site itself, despite the “incessant noise” and “pungent” odours.
Ms X stressed that “she felt the Department had assisted Northern Leaf in making retrospective planning applications, and had shown a lack of regulatory professionalism in dealing with the many complaints made by herself and residents against the operational aspects of the company”.
The report added: “The Board was addressed by the neighbours of Northern Leaf who detailed the detrimental impact that the noise, odour and unauthorised development had had on their lives and enjoyment of their homes.
“They considered that there had been a persistent failure to ensure systems were in place to control noise and that the ‘sniff’ test in relation to odour complaints was ineffective.
“The collective feeling was that neighbours were not receiving the support of the Department, and that there was little understanding of the impact that the issues had caused, and that this was in breach of their legal rights.”
The Complaints Panel’s findings
The Panel, chaired by Geoffrey Crill, reached a number of conclusions, including that the Department had taken an “unreasonable” amount of time to act in respect of odours emanating from the site.
It also criticised the department’s application of a so called ‘sniff test’ threshold, which “placed an unreasonable burden of proof on complainants”, as well as delays in bringing forward an abatement notice for noise and any action in relation to the odours.
Mr Crill said: “The fact that no precedents existed should not have prevented action from being taken by the Department.”
He added: “The Board considers it unacceptable that the Department simply extended the monitoring of odours in order to meet a threshold that had already been acknowledged as unworkable.”
Their overall findings were that:
- The existing Statutory Nuisances (Jersey) Law 1999 was weak and did not provide adequate thresholds by which complaints could be measured;
- The application by the Department of a so called ‘sniff test’ threshold was unjust as it placed an unreasonable burden of proof on complainants;
- The Statutory Nuisance Law had been misinterpreted by the Department;
- Delays in bringing forward an abatement notice for noise and any action in relation to the odours had been unreasonable;
- Northern Leaf’s interests had been prioritised to the detriment of its neighbours; and
- It had been unreasonable of the Department to have taken so long to take action in respect of odours emanating from the site, given the available evidence.
Planning’s rebuttal
But in a statement, chief officer Andy Scate said that – while the Department acknowledged the decision of the Complaints Panel “and its role in providing oversight” – it did not accept the findings presented in the report and refuted suggestions “that the Department acted contrary to the law or behaved in a way that was unjust”.
We do not accept the view that more could or should have been done
I&E chief officer Andy Scate
He continued: “Our responsibility is to uphold Jersey’s regulatory framework fairly and impartially. That means acting in the interests of all parties, residents, businesses and the wider community.
“We maintain the integrity of the planning and regulatory system, this requires striking a careful balance between the rights of individuals and the legal rights of businesses to operate.”
He stressed that, in the case of Northern Leaf, a number of enforcement and noise abatement notices were issued and that “clear regulatory action” was taken in response to concerns raised.
“We stand by our actions taken, ensuring that our interventions lead to meaningful and lasting improvements for those affected,” he added.
“This has been a complex and high-profile regulatory case involving a substantial investment of resources of more than ten officers over a four-year period and over a thousand hours of focused effort.
“We do not accept the view that more could or should have been done. Our team has acted at all times with diligence, professionalism and within the scope of legislation.”
Mr Scate said the department would formally report to the States Assembly within 12 weeks, outlining its response in full “and correcting multiple factual inaccuracies from the complaints board”.
“We also wish to place on record our concern that the Department was not afforded the opportunity to participate fully in the Panel’s hearing process,” he stated.
“The absence of a right to reply or to clarify key information before conclusions were drawn is disappointing and does not reflect principles of procedural fairness.
“We believe the Panel continues to overstep the boundaries of its remit, particularly in matters relating to professional judgment and legal process. We will be considering this aspect further as part of our response.”