> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.thequarry.media/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Forest Road Garage car park application refused to protect agricultural land
- URL: https://www.thequarry.media/forest-road-garage-car-park-application-refused-to-protect-agricultural-land/
- Published: 2026-10-14T09:48:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-14T09:49:06.000Z
- Author: The Quarry
- Tags: News

- Development & Planning Authority has refused Luxicar's application to convert 815 square metres of agricultural land into car parking for Forest Road Garage
- Agriculture, Countryside and Land Management Services confirmed the site was managed as farmed agricultural land in 2025, contradicting claims it is not part of an agricultural holding
- The land features excellent soil quality and forms part of a wider contiguous block of agricultural land with no clear reason it cannot continue contributing to farming operations
- Planners expressed concern the approval could set an undesirable precedent for further encroachment onto agricultural land within the Agriculture Priority Area
- The applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Tribunal within six months of the 8 October 2026 decision date

Listen to this article

0:00

/0

1×

Development & Planning Authority has refused a planning application to convert 815 square metres of agricultural land into additional car parking for Forest Road Garage.

The application by Luxicar, dated 8 October 2026, sought to change the use of agricultural land located to the north of Forest Road Garage in Forest. 

The development would have involved removing existing hedgebanks along the northern boundary, extensive ground level alterations and excavation work, creating new earth-banks as boundary treatments, and installing extensive hard surfacing and tarmac.

The land is currently accessed via Chemin Le Roi and forms part of an Agriculture Priority Area. Forest Road Garage operates as a petrol filling station with car sales, showroom and garage facilities. 

The site already contains substantial parking capacity, with officers noting the rear of the site currently provides 18 lanes of parking, three rows deep, enabling up to 54 vehicles to be parked along the north boundary.

The Authority issued two principal grounds for refusing the application, both relating to fundamental policy conflicts. 

The first concerned the loss of agricultural land, with planning officers concluding that Luxicar failed to demonstrate the land cannot contribute to commercial agriculture or that it cannot be used for agricultural purposes without unacceptable environmental impacts.

The decision notice states: "The land is predominantly flat and features a suitable vehicular access located along the north boundary of the site, which is understood to be used by agricultural vehicles/machinery. The field also forms part of a broader area of contiguous agricultural land extending to the east and west, and to the north, albeit separated by a rural lane."

Agriculture, Countryside and Land Management Services confirmed in their consultation response that their most recent records indicate the site was managed as farmed agricultural land in 2025, directly contradicting claims in the Planning & Design Statement that the land does not form part of an agricultural holding or farmstead.

ACLMS stated: "It has therefore not been demonstrated that the land is incapable of making a positive contribution to the commercial agricultural use of the APA. The parcel forms part of a wider, contiguous block of agricultural land, and there appears to be no clear reason why it could not continue to contribute to the viability and efficient management of the wider farming operation."

The Authority noted the land features excellent soil quality based on ADAS Agricultural Land Classification mapping, and recent orthophotographs show evidence of agricultural vehicle access and use. 

Officers also highlighted that the extensive engineering works would cause unacceptable adverse environmental impact, including loss of existing boundary treatments, significant excavation required due to ground level changes, creation of new boundary treatments, and extensive hard surfacing for car parking.

The planning report concludes: "Overall, the proposal would represent the unacceptable loss of agricultural land within the Agriculture Priority Area and therefore is contrary to Island Development Plan Policies GP15(c) and OC5(A)."

The second reason for refusal focused on the development's impact on open countryside and landscape character. The decision states: "The land the subject of this application forms part of a large swathe of open and undeveloped land which extends to the north, east and west and is visible in views along Chemin Le Roi. 

"The development would unnecessarily and inappropriately encroach onto agricultural land and therefore would have a detrimental effect on the wider open and undeveloped landscape character."

Officers determined that while the land is set back from both Chemin Le Roi and Forest Road, the size of the land parcel in question is considerable and forms part of a wider area of open land, positively contributing to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area.

The planning report emphasises that the level of engineering works involved would represent a significant encroachment onto prime agricultural land and would fundamentally alter the character of the parcel of land when taking into account the level of excavation involved, the loss of established boundary treatments, repositioning of field boundaries, and the extent of tarmac proposed.

Planners expressed concern about precedent, noting that if approved, the proposal could set an undesirable precedent for further encroachment onto agricultural land within the Agriculture Priority Area, contrary to the policy intent to protect this valuable asset for the agricultural industry from unnecessary and inappropriate forms of development.

The Authority concluded: "In this case, the requirements to ensure the protection of open land and landscape character outweigh the reasonable expectations of the landowner to extend car parking provision at Forest Road Garage by incorporating agricultural land located within the Agriculture Priority Area."

The proposal was found contrary to Island Development Plan Policies GP15(a) and GP1\. 

The Authority received one formal representation objecting to the proposal, raising concerns including that the applicant failed to demonstrate the land cannot be used for agricultural purposes, approval could lead to further extension applications in the future, insufficient details about existing vegetation and boundary species, and the proposal conflicts with Guernsey's efforts to reduce reliance on motor vehicles.

In correspondence dated 3 July 2026, the applicant's agent attempted to justify the proposal, arguing the land area represents only 720 square metres with 3,390 square metres to be retained, the land is not visible from a public place, the impact on landscape character is acceptable, and the loss is minimal and necessary to sustain business operations. 

Planning officers rejected these arguments, finding them insufficient to overcome the policy conflicts.

The States Archaeologist raised concerns about potential prehistoric occupation at the site, noting it lies 150 metres north of a field off Rebouquets Lane where prehistoric settlement was identified in 2013\. 

The archaeologist stated: "While there can be no guarantee that settlement is also present at this location, the good quality of the soil and the similar ground conditions to both the Rebouquets Lane site and the land to the west of the airport runway, excavated in 2009-12, suggest that it has higher than usual potential for prehistoric archaeological remains."

Recommendations included either a watching brief during soil removal or digging two to three test-pits in the southern part of the field to assess whether prehistoric remains are present. However, due to the application's refusal on other grounds, these archaeological investigations became moot.

The Island Development Plan recognises that while agriculture plays a relatively small part in Guernsey's economy, it is valuable for its land management function in protecting and enhancing the countryside and providing visual access to open space. The policies place the onus on applicants to demonstrate that farmsteads, buildings or land designated for agricultural priority are no longer required for agricultural purposes before alternative uses can be approved.

Officers noted the application's implications under the Portholme Judgement, where the Court of Appeal held that if a plan allows for development only in certain identified circumstances, by necessary inference, development outside those circumstances is not to be allowed.

The planning report states: "Due to the fundamental issues raised under Policies OC5(A), GP15 and GP1, the only lawful decision that can be reached is that planning permission be refused, and no other matter needs to be considered."

## Q&A

**Q: Why was the planning application refused?**  
A: The application was refused on two principal grounds: first, the loss of agricultural land within an Agriculture Priority Area, as the applicant failed to demonstrate the land cannot contribute to commercial agriculture; and second, the detrimental impact on open countryside and landscape character through inappropriate encroachment onto agricultural land.

**Q: What did the applicant want to do with the land?**  
A: Luxicar sought to convert approximately 815 square metres of agricultural land to car parking for Forest Road Garage, which would have involved removing existing hedgebanks, extensive ground level alterations and excavation work, creating new earth-banks, and installing extensive hard surfacing and tarmac.

**Q: Can the applicant appeal the decision?**  
A: Yes, the applicant has the right to appeal the decision to the Planning Tribunal under Section 68(1) of the Land Planning and Development (Guernsey) Law 2005\. Any appeal must be lodged before the expiry of six months from the decision date of 8 October 2026.