Island Plan Review: in-committee debate

STATES OF JERSEY

ISLAND PLAN REVIEW: IN-COMMITTEE DEBATE

Presented to the States on 6th July 2020 by the Minister for Environment

STATES GREFFE

2020  R.66

14 July 2020

Island Plan Review

1.  Introduction

1. The Island Plan is of utmost strategic significance to Jersey, and the responsibility to implement the right Plan for the island, at the right time, will be recognised by the Assembly. I would like to thank those many States Members who were involved in the early stages of the Island Plan Review, launched last year, to begin to help shape the next Island Plan.
2. Since the first on-island infection was confirmed on 10 March, however, the Covid-19 pandemic has deeply disrupted all of our lives and communities, and the operations of business and government. The immediate impacts of the crisis are obvious, but the longer-term implications will take time to see and to understand.
3. In this context, it is no longer possible – or right – to deliver an Island Plan Review as originally envisaged. To best respond to the current context, it is proposed that the next Island Plan should serve as a shorter-term bridging' plan between two longer- term plans (i.e. the current Island Plan 2011-2021; and a future Island Plan 2025- 2034).
4. This allows for significant progress to be made to address key community planning challenges in this term of government in those areas where there is relative certainty; and for targeted short-term interim policy to be developed and applied in those areas where there is less certainty about the medium- to long-term future.
5. Some changes will need to be made to the way in which the Island Plan Review Programme is normally run to enable this to happen before the end of the current parliamentary term in May 2022.
6. The purpose of this in-committee debate is to provide all States Members with an opportunity to discuss, and to express their views about: the changes that are necessary to enable the delivery of a new Island Plan and; the key planning

challenges that a bridging short-term Island Plan needs to address.

7. I ask Members to participate in and contribute to this debate to enable the Island Plan Review process to move forward on the basis proposed, and to provide a steer on policy content and direction to help inform the plan-making process for this short-term bridging Island Plan.
8. This report provides information to support the in-committee debate, as follows:

• Section one of the report sets out the information about the Minister's obligations to produce a new Island Plan and what changes might be made to the plan's duration, the plan period; and the process for adopting the Island Plan, to enable a new bridging Island Plan 2022-2024 to be developed before the end of the current parliamentary term.

• Section two of the report summarises the outcomes of the recent consultation on strategic issues and options.

• Section three of the report sets out some the key planning challenges that a bridging Island Plan might need to address, and the potential options available to address them.

9. It also includes a set of questions which Members may wish to consider when they address the issues presented in the report: these are inserted in the relevant sections of the report and brought together (for ease of reference) on the following pages overleaf:

Questions for consideration

SECTION ONE

Legal requirements, the plan period and plan status

1. Is the proposed adoption of a three-year bridging Island Plan an appropriate response to the need to progress key community planning matters in a period of some uncertainty caused by the pandemic?

Island Plan Review process

2. To deliver a new Island Plan before the end of the current term means lodging a draft Island Plan at the same time that it is published for public consultation.  

Changes to the process are also likely to lead to a greater number of amendments and a potentially complex debate which will need to be clearly structured.

How do States Members feel about these proposed changes?

Evidence base and interdependencies

3. Is it appropriate to de-couple a short-term three-year planning assumption – to inform the Island Plan Review - from the development of a longer-term migration policy?

SECTION THREE

Spatial strategy

4. Where should we choose to locate new development over the short-term?

Which spatial option, or combination of options, is most appropriate to promote the sustainable development of our urban core and of Jersey's Parish centres and other settlements over the next three years?

Delivering affordable homes

5. How best might affordable homes be delivered over the short-term?

Creating sustainable communities

6. What are the most important factors in ensuring further housing development – particularly in St Helier – creates places that promote the health and wellbeing of residents, and sustainable communities?

Safeguarding economic recovery

7. What objectives should the Island Plan adopt to help the different sectors of economic activity – finance and associated services; retail and tourism and hospitality – respond to the effects of the pandemic?
8. What land use changes in St Helier might assist economic recovery over the short- and longer-terms?

Use of road space

9. To what extent should the Island Plan seek to consider the potential re-allocation of road space to giving pedestrians, cyclists and buses more priority?

Protecting the marine, natural and historic environment

10. What are the key planning issues for the island's marine, natural and historic environments and how should the new Island Plan respond to them?

SECTION ONE

2.  Legal requirements, the plan period and plan status

1. The Minister for the Environment is required, under the provision of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law, to present to the States a comprehensive development plan at least every ten years. Under normal circumstances, an Island Plan would set a forecast of the community's development needs over a ten period together with a viable plan about how these needs would be met over that ten-year period.
2. These are not, however, normal circumstances, and it is difficult to be certain about the likely effects of the pandemic on many aspects of island life over the medium- to long-term. Because of this, it is proposed that the duration, or plan period, of the next Island Plan is reduced to a period of three years. This would mean that the new Island Plan would cover the period 2022-2024 and would serve as a bridging' plan that would set a new planning policy framework for the island and seek to address some of the planning requirements that are more certain and known over the short- term.
3. The effect of this would not be to change the scope of the Island Plan: the plan would still provide a policy framework addressing environmental, social and economic issues, but it would mean that some matters – such as, for example, some longer- term infrastructure provision – might fall outwith the proposed short-term plan period and would remain to be addressed in any subsequent longer-term Island Plan Review.
4. The current Revised 2011 Island Plan would remain in place and would continue to provide the basis for planning decisions until a new Island Plan is adopted early in 2022.
5. It would also mean that another Island Plan Review would likely need to take place early in the term of the next government to replace this short-term bridging plan with a new longer-term Island Plan. This subsequent review would enable further consideration of the impact of the pandemic and new Census data, amongst other things; hopefully when it is possible to forecast the island's longer-term social and economic requirements with more certainty.

Question for consideration

1.  Is the proposed adoption of a three-year bridging Island Plan an appropriate response to the need to progress key community planning matters in a period of some uncertainty caused by the pandemic?

3.  Island Plan Review process

1. Jersey has a plan-led planning process and the Island Plan is the primary consideration in planning decisions. Given its significance for decision-making, the process of developing the Island Plan is thorough, open and rigorous, exposing its content to representations from anyone with an interest in it; and to scrutiny by independent planning inspectors; before the draft plan is debated and approved by the States Assembly.
2. Because of the delay to the original IPR programme caused by the pandemic, delivering a new Island Plan before the elections in May 2022 necessitates a change in the process for its review and approval. This does not alter the time available for the public to consider and make representations against a draft Island Plan; neither does it affect the requirement for independent planning inspectors to hold an Examination in Public (EiP) of the draft Island Plan and the representations made in relation to it: these elements of the programme remain unaffected and would run as they would normally do. Similarly, there is no change to the Island Plan being debated and approved by the States Assembly.
3. The change that is proposed to the process, to enable it to be completed before the end of the current term, is that the draft Island Plan is lodged au Greffe for an extended lodging period of 12 weeks, at the same time that it is published for public consultation. Under normal circumstances, the Minister would publish a draft Island Plan for public consultation and then, following the EiP, lodge a revised draft Island Plan au Greffe for States Members to consider making amendments. This means that public consultation and the process for States members to lodge amendments to the draft Island Plan take place at the same time. This change is illustrated at appendix 1.
4. There will also be a need to amend the law to enable the Minister to bring forward his own amendments to the draft Island Plan once he has considered the planning inspectors' report. This will enable the Minister to reflect upon the advice and

recommendations made by the inspectors about the issues raised through public consultation and States Members' amendments, which will have been considered at the Examination in Public.

5. It is likely that these changes to the overall process of approving a new Island Plan will result in more amendments to it, which has the potential to present some complexity requiring appropriate management to ensure a well-structured and clear debate. The Minister for the Environment will discuss how best this process might be managed with the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, and the Greffier, to ensure that States members receive appropriate support and assistance throughout the process.
6. This approach maintains the statutory minimum requirements for public and political consultation and will also supplement these with an additional programme of member and stakeholder engagement during the preparation of the draft plan. This will provide opportunity to consider, discuss and build consensus around key issues at specific points during the development of the draft Island Plan throughout the remainder of 2020. This engagement will need to recognise the constraints of time and the restrictions associated with the management of the pandemic which offers the opportunity to apply new remote ways of working which have become more accepted as a consequence of the pandemic.

Questions for consideration

2.  To deliver a new Island Plan before the end of the current term means lodging a draft Island Plan at the same time that it is published for public consultation.

Changes to the process are also likely to lead to a greater number of amendments and a potentially complex debate which will need to be clearly structured.

How do States Members feel about these proposed changes?

4.  Evidence base and interdependencies

1. The Minister for the Environment is charged, in law, in bringing forward a plan that provides for the orderly, comprehensive and sustainable development of the land which best meets the needs of the community'. The adequacy of the policies in the draft Island Plan that are designed to do this, and the justification for them, are tested through the plan-making process, during public consultation and independent review by planning inspectors. There is a need, therefore, to ensure that the Island Plan is prepared on the basis of a sound, robust and proportionate evidence base, to ensure that its policies are well-founded and reflect, as accurately as possible, the community's requirements over the plan period.
2. Significant work has already been completed to specify and contract for a range of technical studies to support the Island Plan Review. These studies will provide updated information that, alongside existing studies, data and strategies, will form much of the evidence base for the new bridging Island Plan, and will also likely serve to inform any subsequent longer-term Island Plan Review. This evidence will be published in the coming months and sessions will be held to help States Members and stakeholders to engage with and understand the new information.
3. Much of the work already commissioned and in train is focussed around environmental aspects of the plan and in areas where the island's longer-term objectives are much more certain. For other aspects of the plan, and in particular, those that are more sensitive to changes in levels of economic activity and in- migration, there is much less certainty and a different approach is required over the short-term three-year plan period.

Planning assumption

4. Whilst the Island Plan is the key tool in planning decisions, it also needs to make provision for the community's needs over the plan period. It was originally proposed that the next ten-year Island Plan would adopt a planning assumption that was informed by the adoption of a new migration policy for the island. Understanding population dynamics and the anticipated impact of future migration policies on the demographic profile of our community over the medium- to long-term helps us to plan for housing and infrastructure along with other community needs, such as accommodating an ageing population and meeting education and health care needs.

5. By seeking to limit the plan period for this Island Plan Review to just three years; and having regard to the current uncertainty generated by the pandemic; it is proposed that this transitional Island Plan Review is de-coupled from the key interdependency of a migration policy. Work will need to be undertaken to develop the basis of a planning assumption – and an associated housing requirement – to be adopted and applied over the bridging plan period, and it is proposed that States Members are engaged in this process.
6. Similarly, assumptions would need to be developed about the planning requirements of the local economy, probably based on a precautionary approach, to enable the development of targeted policy to safeguard economic recovery over the immediate post-pandemic period.
7. It is envisaged that engagement with States members and key stakeholders would take place to consider the adoption of a planning assumption and the development and adoption of short-term economic objectives as an integral part of draft plan preparation. This work would be informed by engagement with Statistics Jersey and other government departments to: ensure that the most appropriate data is used to prepare a planning assumption; to align with emerging, proposed and (in future) adopted policies in key areas including migration, housing and economic policies; and to understand associated impacts.
8. The methodologies and considerations used to form the assessment of need across the draft Island Plan will be open to public scrutiny and independent inspection at an Examination in Public, before being considered by the States Assembly.
9. The subsequent development and adoption of a migration policy; the associated performance of the island's economy; and the development of a longer-term economic framework for the island can inform any subsequent longer-term review of the Island Plan post 2022.

Question for consideration

3.  Is it appropriate to de-couple a short-term three-year planning assumption – to inform the Island Plan Review - from the development of a longer-term migration policy?

SECTION TWO

5. Strategic issues and options

1. The Island Plan Review Strategic Issues and Options consultation took place over a three-month period from 10 July to 11 October 2019. The consultation sought views on the key issues affecting the long-term development of the island and different options for addressing them. It was structured around four areas:

• the spatial strategy,

• a sustainable island environment,

• a sustainable island economy, and

• sustainable island communities.

2. A summary[1] and a detailed technical version[2] of the consultation paper were published in July 2019 and more than 45 engagement events were held throughout the consultation period, including at least one in each Parish, and with a range of youth groups.
3. This consultation sought to identify and validate the key long-term planning challenges for the island and to test some of the potential longer-term policy responses to them. It also sought to provide an opportunity for other issues to be raised that members of the community felt needed to be addressed by the next Island Plan.
4. Many of the issues raised have an immediate relevance requiring a policy response in the bridging Island Plan. Others may have more relevance for a subsequent Island Plan Review.
5. Some of the key findings of the Strategic Issues and Options consultation are set out below for members' information and to help inform their contribution to the in- committee debate. The next section of this paper – Section Three – seeks to enable discussion about the relevance of these findings to the key planning challenges that a shorter-term bridging Island Plan needs to address, and how it might address them.

Key findings

6. A consultation findings report was published on 13 December 2019[1]. Key findings from the Island Plan Review Strategic Issues and Options consultation include:

• Of the spatial strategy options, respondents showed the most support for focusing development within the town of St Helier, with 71% of respondents supporting this option. Many expressed support for increasing the density of development in town to accommodate housing need. The option of expanding the town to the south – involving the potential release of land at the harbour - was also generally supported.

• 78% of respondents expressed resistance to development in the countryside. Expanding the town of St Helier to the north, east and west received a mixed response. Expanding other out-of-town built up areas and the option of creating a new settlement or significantly expanding an existing settlement received generally unfavourable responses.

• Around 55% of respondents showed support for land reclamation, with many considering it a means to meet development needs while protecting the countryside from development. Given the time taken to deliver development on reclaimed land, this option is unlikely to be viable within the next Island Plan period but may need to be planned for in the new Island Plan.

• Over half of respondents felt it was either important or very important that new development protects and enhances St Helier's townscape character.

• Around 73% of respondents strongly agreed or agreed that there should be an interim review of housing demand and performance targets, to ensure needs and demands are met.

• On delivering affordable housing, developing sites in public ownership was widely supported as an approach (85%), although a substantial number of respondents (69%) also favoured requiring delivery of affordable homes by private developers as part of their housing developments.

• Around 58% or respondents supported the principle of imposing a levy on

development to fund community infrastructure investment.

• Most respondents (72%) felt that it was either very important or important that new development is focussed on locations which minimise journey times and the need to travel.

• A strong theme running through very many comments was the need to reduce inward migration and reduce the rate of unsustainable population growth.

SECTION THREE

6. Key planning challenges

1. Whilst a bridging Island Plan will remain comprehensive in its scope and coverage and will provide a new robust planning policy framework against which planning decisions can be made; its limited three-year plan period will, by necessity, focus attention to those key planning challenges that need to be addressed over a shorter time frame.
2. This section of the paper seeks to enable discussion about: the key planning challenges that a shorter-term bridging Island Plan might need to address, and; how it might address them. The following issues are identified:

• Spatial strategy

• Delivery of homes

• Place-making and creating sustainable communities

• Our Hospital

• A plan for St Helier and economic recovery

• Making provision for infrastructure

• Protecting the marine, natural and historic environment

• Planning for climate change

3. The above list is not exhaustive, and members may wish to raise other issues.

Spatial Strategy

4. A fundamental issue, and key part of the Island Plan Review, is setting a strategic direction as to where in the island we choose to locate new development. This is known as the spatial strategy'. It is of fundamental importance and will determine how the conflicts inherent in planning for a sustainable future can be balanced over the coming years.
5. The strategic issues and options consultation asked islanders about the acceptability of different spatial options (while noting that a combination of these options will be necessary to meet Jersey's future development needs). The diagram below sets out a summary of responses received.

6. Responses showed most support for those options which involve concentrating development in areas which are already built-up, including St Helier or other built-up areas, or expansion of development into the Port of St Helier (this option is dependent on changes to the port). Expansion of development into the countryside was considered not at all acceptable by over 50% of respondents in all cases except where it involved the expansion of the town of St Helier to the north, east and west: even in this case, however, over 50% considered it to be unacceptable in some way.

7. Considering the right approach to the spatial strategy is complex. The approach recommended in the draft Island Plan will be informed by:

• the development needs that have been identified;

• the capacity for new development to take place in different areas; and

• the anticipated social, environmental and economic impacts that may be felt as a result – this includes supporting the future sustainability of Parish centres and other rural settlements.

• there also needs to be general public and political support for the chosen direction.

8. Taking the above factors into consideration - and having regard to the fact that a bridging Island Plan will only need to make provision for development needs over a three-year period – significant change to the spatial strategy of the current Island Plan is unlikely to be required. This focuses development in the existing built-up area with some limited release of greenfield land to support the delivery of affordable homes.
9. Members might wish to consider how the need for new development, especially housing, should be addressed in a bridging Island Plan that only needs to make provision for three years housing supply in terms of where it should be located in the island, and the opportunities and challenges that this presents.

Questions for consideration

4. Where should we choose to locate new development over the short-term?

Which spatial option, or combination of options, is most appropriate to promote the sustainable development of our urban core and of Jersey's Parish centres and other settlements over the next three years?

Delivery of affordable homes

10. Whilst the pandemic has created much uncertainty about the future of various aspects of island life, it remains clear that there is a need to deliver more affordable housing in the island. The preparation of a short-term bridging plan enables a

specific focus to be given as to how affordable homes might be delivered over that shorter plan period, to help alleviate this issue as soon as possible.

11. The strategic issues and options consultation sought to explore how affordable homes might be best delivered. Requiring developers to provide a proportion of their housing yields as affordable homes was considered a favourable option with 69% of respondents either strongly agreeing or agreeing with this approach: the viability of this approach may, however, be more difficult to achieve in a post-pandemic recovery period and over a short-term period.
12. In such circumstances, other options, such as the use of government assets to deliver affordable homes and other forms of housing, such as key worker accommodation, might be prioritised in the short-term: this may also serve to help provide an economic stimulus and help to regenerate the economy.
13. Members may also wish to consider the aspirations of some parishes to provide affordable homes to meet specific local requirements, but this needs to be considered against the challenge of delivering homes in more rural parts of the island, and relative to the spatial strategy that any new Island Plan might adopt.

Place-making

14. Successive Island Plans have sought higher land-efficient densities and compact forms of housing in suitable locations, and 'urban living' by flat dwellers is now an accepted facet of island life.
15. Higher density compact housing developments can deliver a number of well- recognised benefits including supporting regeneration and helping to protect open countryside from development. At the same time large, often taller, high-density residential developments can impact on the local character of an area and can create pressure on existing community infrastructure where we fail to make further provision.
16. In seeking more dense forms of development, including taller buildings, the quality of urban design – both of buildings and their setting in the wider public realm – takes on great importance: it is important to build places to live and not just focus on the delivery of the requisite number of homes. The importance of this issue has been highlighted during the pandemic where people have had to spend greater periods of

time in their homes and where the quality of their living space and their immediate neighbourhood has been a critical factor in peoples' health and wellbeing.

17. The new plan will provide general policy to support placemaking which will help to ensure that development is appropriate for its locality. This will clearly recognise the different characteristics of the island's urban areas in particular, and make sure that development better responds to their individual character.
18. There is general support amongst islanders for continuing to deliver more dense forms of development generally (at 40%) or on a case-by-case basis (at 43%), which would allow account to be taken of individual character areas There is also some support for allowing taller buildings (at 44%), although 31% consider this should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, with 25% seeking to resist tall buildings.

Creating sustainable communities

19. Whilst the principle of focusing more development in an expanded greater St Helier and creating more dense forms of development enjoys general support, there is concern that sites should not be over-developed'. Existing and future residents of the town, in particular, should enjoy access to the general amenities and community facilities that people in other parts of the island might enjoy. This should include provision of public open space – green roofs, parks, play space and access to the countryside; and community facilities. It is particularly important that core public service provision – particularly in the areas of education and healthcare – is developed alongside the building of new homes and communities. The impact of new development on existing schools, health facilities and other key services must be understood and plans put in place to ensure local communities are not unduly disadvantaged by the sequencing of developments.
20. Delivery of this sort of community infrastructure through the planning system is challenging and Members should consider how best this might be achieved and delivered. There was public support for the previously rejected introduction of a planning levy or charge to support the delivery of community infrastructure when raised during consultation: the viability of this approach in a post-pandemic recovery period, and over a short-term period, will require consideration.

Questions for consideration

5. How best might affordable homes be delivered over the short-term?
6. What are the most important factors in ensuring further housing development

– particularly in St Helier – creates places that promote the health and wellbeing of residents, and sustainable communities?

Our Hospital

21. The new Island Plan will need to make provision for the island's future development needs, which includes the well evidenced and undisputed need for a new hospital. The Island Plan Review, and the new Island Plan will, therefore, make provision for a new hospital – either by way of allocating a specific site or including a policy which enables a new proposal to be tested – depending on the progress of the Our Hospital project, relative to the Island Plan Review.
22. The policy context for decision making, under a new Island Plan will be more straightforward because the need for a new hospital will be explicitly acknowledged, but the planning and other issues that are raised by the delivery of a new hospital still need to be addressed, as set out in the recent supplementary guidance issued by the Minister.

A plan for Town

23. The current Island Plan provides a spatial description of the town of St Helier – distinct from the Parish of St Helier – that stretches from First Tower in the west, to La Pouquelaye in the north and Greve D'Azette in the east, as shown on the map below (see figure 1).
24. The future development of town is critical to the success of the island on many levels, both in the medium- and longer-term, but also in the period of recovery from the effects of the pandemic. In planning for town, the new Island Plan will need to set out policies that:

• safeguard and respond to the short-term needs of our economy as it recovers from the pandemic

• promote the sustainable wellbeing of residents and visitors, and

• ensure that St Helier is somewhere which offers a distinctive urban experience.

Figure 1: Town of St Helier

25. The following issues will be at the heart of plans for St Helier: Safeguarding economic recovery
26. St Helier plays a pre-eminent role in the island economy and is the focus for the island's finance industry and its associated services, retailing, and also provides many of the hotels and restaurants which serve the island's tourism and hospitality industry.
27. It is difficult to be certain about the effect of the pandemic on these various sectors of the island's economy: this will only become clearer with time as the island emerges from the pandemic. There may be a requirement to adopt a precautionary approach, to enable the development of targeted short-term policy to safeguard economic recovery over the immediate post-pandemic period, with a view to seeking to ensure that land and buildings remain available for economic activity in the medium- to longer-term.

28. In the recent consultation, there was general support (at 46%) for maintaining office development in St Helier; and support for a more flexible approach to hotel development (with only 18% considering that St Helier should be protected as the primary centre for hotel development). Other policies in the island plan, particularly those related to transport and housing development, will also have a direct impact particularly on the retail sector.

Questions for consideration

7. What objectives should the Island Plan adopt to help the different sectors of economic activity – finance and associated services; retail and tourism and hospitality – respond to the effects of the pandemic?
8. What land use changes in St Helier might assist economic recovery over the short- and longer-terms?

Use of road space

29. Our network of roads and streets are important to help people move around but are also an important part of our public realm where people shop, visit for leisure or tourism, or form an important part of their local neighbourhoods.
30. There is competing pressure for the use of this space and opportunities to reprioritise the use of road space in St Helier – especially in residential streets or on roads in the heart of the town centre – will be necessary in helping to improve the quality of St Helier as a place to live, work and visit. The recent consultation found overwhelming support to giving pedestrians, cyclists and buses more priority in the use of road space in St Helier.
31. The pandemic, and the associated reduction in levels of traffic, encouraged many islanders to walk and cycle, and in so doing, reclaimed the use of road space for more sustainable modes of transport. The need to maintain social distancing also highlighted the paucity of space in our roads and streets that is allocated to pedestrians and cyclists relative to cars. Members may wish to consider whether the effect of the pandemic might present an opportunity to re-examine the use and allocation of road space in the island, and particularly St Helier.

32. The next Island Plan Review can be informed by the four separate workstreams of the Sustainable Transport Policy and seek to help further deliver its objectives through the incorporation of specific policies and proposals.

Question for consideration

9. To what extent should the Island Plan seek to consider the potential re- allocation of road space to giving pedestrians, cyclists and buses more priority?

Infrastructure provision

33. The new Island Plan will need to make provision for the island's future physical infrastructure requirements, including drainage, health, education and community facilities. Some of these, such as the requirement to respond to the challenges posed by rising sea levels and enhance coastal defences, may need to be dealt with in the short-term and provision made in a bridging Island Plan. This may also apply to securing a supply of minerals to support the construction industry and to identify new routes for solid waste disposal in the short-term.
34. Others may pose longer-term challenges and can be dealt with in a subsequent longer-term Island Plan Review. Work is being undertaken, as part of the review programme, to assess the capacity of the island's physical infrastructure and to identify and explore the options available to make provision for it.

Protecting the marine, natural and historic environment

35. An Island Plan Review affords an opportunity to review and revise the planning policy regime for the marine, natural and historic environment.
36. A new, but limited, policy regime for the island's marine environment focused on marine biodiversity value; seascape character; flood risk; and renewable energy could be developed in the new Island Plan. There is also a need to undertake and develop a more comprehensive marine spatial plan - to provide a policy framework for all activities and development in the marine environment, including fishing – but this will need to be developed for the longer-term and inform a subsequent Island Plan Review.

37. Work has already been commissioned, as part of the IPR programme, to review and assess the value of and changes to the island's landscape character and biodiversity. This can inform a full review of the protection regime for the island's coast and countryside, including a review of the Coastal National Park boundaries and the impact of development on the island's coastline. This work has also, for the first time, included an assessment of the island's seascape out to territorial limits.
38. A new policy regime for the protection of biodiversity and of the importance of green open space and nature for health and wellbeing might also be addressed as part of a new Island Plan.
39. A comparative review of the nature and effectiveness of the historic environment regime across various administrations is underway. This will inform a review of the existing planning policy regime for the historic environment involving the introduction of Conservation Areas. Where somewhere has a distinct historic and architectural character – and might be a possible Conservation Area - over 90% of respondents to the strategic issues and options consultation thought this ought to be protected and enhanced. A review of policy for the historic environment might also consider how it might best respond to the impacts of climate change for old buildings.

Question for consideration

10. What are the key planning issues for the island's marine, natural and historic environments and how should the new Island Plan respond to them?

Planning for climate change

40. There is a need to ensure that the island is more resilient to the effects of climate change and also to plan to reduce the island's contribution to it.
41. The nature of the spatial strategy adopted for the new Island Plan will influence travel choices and the need for people to make journeys will directly affect the level of greenhouse gas emissions. Consideration might need to be given in the plan to encourage renewable energy production and further enhance the sustainability of design.

42. The IPR will also have explicit regard to coastal and surface water flood risk informed by the Shoreline Management Plan and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
43. Any subsequent IPR can be informed by the action plan of an emergent Carbon Neutral Strategy and seek to help further deliver its objectives.

7.  Endnote

1. On the basis of a revised Island Plan Review programme, that has been amended to respond to the effect of the pandemic, a draft Island Plan 2022-2024 is expected to be published for consultation in early 2021, at the same time that it is lodged au Greffe. It will remain open for public comments for twelve weeks. States members will also be able lodge amendments during this period.
2. The Minister for the Environment will respond to public consultation, and to any States Members' amendments, setting out his intention to amend the draft Island Plan or not in response to the issues raised. Everything is then considered by independent planning inspectors at an Examination in Public, which is scheduled to take place towards the end of 2021.
3. The inspectors will issue a report to the Minister, which will be published, in advance of a debate on the proposition to approve the draft Island Plan. The Minister will reflect upon the advice and recommendations made by the inspectors about the issues raised through public consultation and States Members' amendments and may wish to lodge his own further amendments. The States debate to approve the new Island Plan is proposed to take place in January 2022. A revised timeline is set out at appendix B.
4. Legislative change is required to enable this revised process to proceed: this is proposed to be effected under the Covid-19 (Enabling Provisions) (Jersey) Law 2020.
5. This in-committee debate has been requested to provide States Members with an early opportunity to discuss the revised Island Plan Review programme; and to consider the key issues that a short-term bridging Island Plan might need to address and how it might address them.
6. Members are encouraged to

• note the legal and policy context for, approach to and progress with the Island Plan Review, as set out in section 1;

• consider and direct their comments to the key cross-cutting issues and questions set out in section 2;

• alert the Minister with any concerns they have over the process being followed and identify the policy issues they wish to see addressed as early as possible as the process proceeds; and

• contact the Island Plan Review Team at any point should they have any questions or wish to access any further information.

Email: islandplan@gov.je.

Telephone: Kevin Pilley, Head of Place and Spatial Planning: 07797 826675

Post: Island Plan Review Team, Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance, 19-21 Broad Street, JE2 3RR

Island Plan Review: changes to process of review and adoption

Current

Proposed