Island Plan 2002 - changes to Built-up Area boundary (P.77-2005) – third amendments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ISLAND PLAN 2002: CHANGES TO BUILT-UP AREA BOUNDARY (P.77/2005) – THIRD AMENDMENTS

Lodged au Greffe on 10th May 2005 by Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier

STATES GREFFE

ISLAND PLAN 2002: CHANGES TO BUILT-UP AREA BOUNDARY (P.77/2005): THIRD AMENDMENTS ____________

1. Delete sub-paragraph  (a)(x) and after sub-paragraph  (b)(iii) insert the following new sub-paragraph –

" (i ii ) a n area of land situated in the Parish of St.  Lawrence, bounded to the south by Tesson Mews, to the west by La Rue du Moulin de Tesson and to the north and east by La  Vallée de St.  Pierre, a shown hatched on the attached drawing dated 9th February 2005"

2. After new sub-paragraph  (b)(iii) insert the following new sub-paragraph –

(i v ) F i eld  621, La Route de Noirmont, St.  Brelade, as shown hatched on the attached drawing dated

17th February 2005.

DEPUTY J.A. HILTON OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

Introduction

As a result of the new Island Plan 2002, Members and indeed the public have become increasingly concerned about that section of the Island Plan that defines the Built-Up Area and boundary definition and policy. This policy is referred to in General Policy G2 on page  4.3 of the Island Plan 2002.

I quote the first 2 conditions of General Development Considerations. Applicants must need to demonstrate that the proposed development –

1. W  il l notunreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area.
2. W  i llnothave an unreasonableimpactonneighbouring uses and the local environmentby reason ofvisual intrusion orother amenity considerations.

I draw Members' attention to the St. Lawrence's site. Members looking and knowing the wooded area surrounded by roads, almost an Island site opposite Tesson Mill and facing the road to the Underground Hospital. It is a very pleasant amenity area, and yet is considered within the Built-Up Area. I do not intend to go into a long justification as to why this site is special. My point is that the 2002 Island Plan is flawed and this should not be in the Built-Up Area. The flaw is that this area technically can be built on.

I now draw Members' attention to the site map of Field 621 and the attached photograph. This is an agricultural field on the west side of Route de Noirmont. It provides a break from the escalating and continuing development of Route de Noirmont. I ask Members to study this photograph. It is a beautiful field sloping down to St. Brelade's Bay. Yet, for some reason, it is within the Built-Up Area. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable that this beautiful agricultural field with stunning sea views should be targeted by a developer. It presents a pleasant break to the increasing ribbon developments along Route de Noirmont.

We have seen an interpretation of the definition of the Built-Up Area, and indeed Members will be aware of the density of residential developments that have taken place recently in St.  Clement and St.  Brelade.

Members will also be aware that there was a significant reference back, demanded by Deputies Harry and Gerard Baudains during the debate on the Island Plan July 2002, and it was after clarification by the then Chairman of the Applications Sub-Committee, ex- Deputy Alastair Layzell, that the Island Plan 2002 was approved.

I believe that the section of the Island Plan 2002 dealing with the Built-Up Area is flawed and that is why I am seeking to protect the sites in St.  Brelade and St.  Lawrence referred to above in this first instance. I then propos to ask Members support at a later stage, a proposition to redefine the Built-Up Area. We must not see a continuance of what has been happening on small residential sites in the Built-Up Area, where one house is purchased, demolished, and replaced by anything up to 10  units of Category  B accommodation is approved and built.

Windfall development

Members will be aware of a new phrase coming into planning terminology, and that is the term "windfall development". The first reference to this curious phrase that I have found is in the 6th document I list below, a report compiled by Planning Officers dated 12th February 2003, I quote from section 3.2.4 –

" T h e plan (Island Plan) also has to have regard for the provision for the development opportunities for other types of housing, which are secured through open market "windfall development": Category B (private sector homes). The provision of Category B "windfall" housing development will make an important contribution to the overall provision of homes in the Island during the Plan period."

I believe that this policy has caused problems in the overdevelopment of certain sites in specific areas such as

St.  Clement and in the Noirmont area of St.  Brelade.

This policy encourages development on limited sites, and it encourages the presumption to build on small sites, be they fields, large gardens, small gardens or open spaces.

This  goes  completely  against  the  stated  policy  of  development  in  the  Built-Up  Area,  where  there  is no presumption in favour of development.

There was a press release by the Planning Department on 14th November 2002. I have included it in this Proposition. In it, the then Committee stated clearly that it wanted to make it clear that there was no presumption in favour of development in the Built-Up Area.

Proof

In the document I refer to, compiled by Planning Officers dated 12th February 2003, there is a table of figures labelled table  8.4 in Appendix  4. In this table, Members will be able to see a"windfall" projection of expected yield on Category  B Housing in the Parishes outside St.  Helier. The Planning Department projected a yield o 460  houses for the period 2002 to 2006. I have it confirmed now by the Department that in 2002, 462  Category homes were completed and in 2003, 373  Category  B homes were completed. That gives a total of 835  home actually completed in that period of 2  years. The figures for 2004 were not available at the time of writing this Proposition. The yield is about 80% higher than projected, so I argue that the Island Plan 2002 is flawed and there is indeed a strong presumption in favour of development.

Speech to the House 11th July 2002

We  now  need  to  consider  the  speech  referred  to  made  by  ex- Deputy  Layzell,  the  then  Chairman  of  the Applications Sub-Committee.

I will let Members read the body of the text for themselves, but I highlight the first paragraph of page 2 –

" because  the '87  Plan  is  still  in  existence,  we  have  a  very  unsatisfactory  situation  where  the Agricultural Priority  Zone  washes  over  a number of  what  are clearly Built-Up Areas  and  that has prevented development in those areas, ".

" where small plots of land, alongside houses, between one house and another house, existed there would now be the potential to put a house in there where previously those applications, and there were quite a number of them, had been continually denied, not just by this Committee but by every Committee since the '87 Plan was approved.".

Ex- Deputy Layzell is indicating, or implying, very small-scale development. He talks about a house between other houses. I am certain the ex- Deputy is not happy with how this Policy on the Built-Up Area has gone wrong.

The problem is that the reference back by the two Deputies Baudains should have signalled warning signs to States Members. It did not, and as a result the Island Plan 2002 was approved in July 2002 with this fatal flaw.

What we see today in various parts of the Island are evidence of this.

There is no Built-Up Area boundary definition and Policy in the Island Plan 2002.

Conclusion

I wish to recommend to Members that owing to the ambiguity and weakness of the Island Plan 2002 that –

1. T h e site referred toatTessonbe returned to the Green Zone.
2. T h e site referred toas Field 621tobereturned to the Green Zone.

3. I a s k for the support of the House.
4. I f M  emberswillsupport the amendment, I propose tobring a further Proposition to improve and protect the Built-UpArea boundary definition andpolicy.

Financial and manpower implications

I do not believe that there are any financial or manpower implications arising from this amendment.

Annexes

Members will find 6 documents annexed to this Report –

1. A m  apof the St.  Lawrence site.
2. A m  apof the location ofField621 in St. Brelade.
3. A p hotographof Field 621in St.  Brelade.
4. A c opyof a speech made by ex- Deputy Layzellon 11th July 2002 in the debate on the IslandPlan2002.
5. A c opyof a Press Release dated 14th November2002 from the Planning Department.
6. A c opyof a report written by Planning Officers dated12th February 2003.

ISLAND PLAN DEBATE – JULY 2002 DEPUTY A. LAYZELL'S SPEECH

We are, as you say, discussing the reference back proposed by Deputy Harry Baudains and I wondered if I could, given that the President has already spoken, take Members through the process that was used by the Committee to get us to where we are today.

Members will know that the consultation draft was published thirteen months ago in June 2001 and that was preceded by a presentation to a number of States Members at the St.  Paul's Centre. Following that, the Draft Plan was exhibited through a series of written presentations, but also large scale maps, at exhibitions in each Parish Hall in June and July 2001, and those were presentations which were manned by officers of our own Department and also the consultants, W.S.  Atkins. That was followed by the Querée and Layzell roadshow which successfully went round the Parish Hall s in June and July and they were very well-attended meetings. They were hot meetings at times and they were interesting and exciting meetings and they resulted in clearly people having looked at the maps which were put up for their benefit, in some cases making written representations for changes of the lines that had been drawn as proposed and for the Committee subsequently acceding to a number of those requests.

Then there was a separate permanent exhibition which was very well publicised at premises on the Esplanade for four weeks in June/July 2001. All the written representations, and there were a lot of them, were considered as the President has said by the Independent Reviewer, Professor Patrick McAuslan. The Committee then considered Professor McAuslan's recommendations and all the written representations, all the letters weren't just sent to the Professor they were also copied to Members of the Committee. And as I've said some boundaries were changed as a result.

Meetings were held with the Parishes of St.  Martin, St.  John, at the request of those Parishes, to discuss details o the Draft Plan including where the new boundaries would fall. Then the Draft Plan was lodged on 30 April 2002, that's ten weeks ago. There was a meeting of States Members, a very well-attended one because it followed the end of a normal States meeting, on 23 May in this Chamber to discuss the Draft Plan. Subsequently there was a Parish Assembly in St.  Lawrence, at the request of the Constable of St.  Lawrence, to discuss details of the Draf Plan and the matter raised by Deputy Baudains, or Deputy Baudains', in the States on 2 July was nine weeks after the lodging and one week before the debate, Now the Committee really feels that it has done all it could almost possibly do to encourage members of the public and States Members, their representatives, to take part in the consultation process and I think it important, Ma'am, to try to establish why we've done what we've done.

A fundamental purpose of the Island Plan Review was to classify settlements and re-assess boundaries and although we touched upon this in another debate yesterday, I think it bears repeating that we had an extremely, or currently have because the '87 Plan is still in existence, we have a very unsatisfactory situation where the Agricultural Priority Zone washes over a number of what are clearly Built-Up Areas and that has prevented development in those areas, and I said I think in response to the debate provoked by Deputy Voisin yesterday that the reorganisation was to the benefit of the community because clearly where small plots of land, alongside houses between one house and another house, existed there would now be the potential to put a house in there where previously those applications, and there were quite a number of them, had been continually denied, not just by this Committee but by every Committee since the '87 Island Plan was approved.

The process was explained, all that process, I remember explaining it myself at several of the meetings, it was explained in great detail by myself and by the President in the meetings that we had and at the presentations, and we have had excellent work by the officers last night to prepare a single sheet of A4 which has been put on all Members' desks which shows what you might call the most significant changes to the re-drawing of the line. There were minor changes, it says that on the bottom of the A4 sheet, because as the drawers went round they might for instance have re-drawn the Built-Up Area around a garage where previously it was around a garden and that sort of thing, and were we to produce that sort of list well we would have a document which was twice as thick as the Island Plan before us today.

Senator Kinnard, I just want to pick up a point which she made yesterday, talked about the U.K. process of

putting applications on the actual site of the application and of course that does happen in the U.K. and the States has agreed that that will happen in the new Planning Law which is not yet in force, and it is an entirely sensible thing to do but were we to have done that in respect of the tine then we would have had thousands of little posts and notices and I think it would have been, frankly, impractical to do. Clearly, Ma'am, it is the responsibility of States Members to scrutinise the Plan in the interests of the public at large and one might say their constituents in particular and many Members clearly did that, some did not, and some have admitted that they came to it very late in the day. But I don't think that any States Member can justifiably claim to be unaware of the process involved in the content of the review of the '87 Plan.

Ma'am, I think Members need to think very carefully about the effect of successful reference back. Would we ask, for instance, all States Members to take a detailed look and bring back the changes they propose. If so, well we should really send the lines out for public consultation again, a huge, a huge and costly exercise, a long exercise, and all the gains in the Plan that we have voted for in the last two days, and they are considerable gains, would have to be put on hold. Members would have to face their constituents who are desperate for new homes because the housing sites would be put on hold because the Bailiff ruled yesterday that the map cannot be de- linked from the proposition itself, Frankly, it is difficult, Ma'am, to know what else the Committee would have done. If the system has failed us, well, if Members have left it too late to do their work on behalf of their constituents I don't think that those people waiting for housing sites and new homes should have to suffer.

I would like to turn then to the specific concerns as articulated by Deputy Harry Baudains, supported by Deputy Gerard Baudains. It seems to me that the debate, and it seems to the Committee, that the debate turns upon how vulnerable to develop are the fields that they have identified as what they, I suppose, would term anomalies to the drawn line and I guess we all left the Chamber last night thinking that, well if we were in the 1987 mindset for Planning, they would be vulnerable because there is a presumption in the Built-Up Area that it will be Built-Up, or to put it another way there is not a presumption against development in the Built-Up Area and therefore somebody coming along and saying "I want to build a house in the Built-Up Area" would be likely to gain permission. But sleeping on it, one has realised that of course that is the 87 culture. What we are dealing with now is a different Planning culture, a different policy set and I would ask Members to turn to Page 4.3 of the Draft Plan where Policy G1 is printed in bold – the policy of sustainable development. And if I can take Members through what would likely happen let us say if somebody applied, and this is purely hypothetical, to build a house in one of the attractive fields that are photographed on the board in Le Hocq Lane or on the piece of green land opposite Tesson Mill where the children use the trees to swing to and from, if we can all be Planners for a moment and consider, as I say under the '87 Plan, the presumption is in the favour of the applicant. But under this Plan, firstly the applicant would have to meet the criteria laid out in Policy G1 the sustainable development, so (1) integrate new development with the existing Built-Up Areas. Conserve, I'm picking from the box but Members can follow me, I'm sure, conserve or enhance the natural environment and the cultural heritage of the Island. And then crucially over the page, the applicant would have to demonstrate under Policy G2 that the proposed development will not unreasonably affect the character and amenity of the area. Now I wonder if the person who wanted to build a house on the little green land opposite Tesson Mill could actually demonstrate that. Or conversely, whether the Committee could prove that actually building a house there would affect the character and amenity of the area. Similarly, they would have to demonstrate that the application would not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of visual intrusion or other amenity considerations and it might be said that the Committee is entitled to say that the green space opposite Tesson Mill was an amenity area for the children of the 1960s estate alongside that Deputy Baudains dislikes. So, it is a different policy set.

Then we go on, well (3) probably isn't relevant, or might be relevant I suppose, it doesn't have an unreasonable impact on agricultural land, but probably not in the cases that Deputy Baudains has cited. And then at (4) the applicant will have to demonstrate that the application or the development will not have an unreasonable impact on the landscape, ecology, archaeological remains or architectural features. That could be Tesson Mill – an architectural feature listed by the Committee, and includes where appropriate measures for the enhancement of such features and the landscaping of the site. At (6) – will not have an unreasonable impact on important open space, so if we consider those to be important open space areas I suppose the Committee might be entitled to reject the application. It wouldn't have an unreasonable impact on built features – Tesson Mill, including trees, hedgerows, banks, walls and fosses. At (8), will not lead to unacceptable problems with traffic generation, safety or parking.

I not going to prolong the debate now and I hope that I have demonstrated to Members, with the benefit of some thought overnight, that this is a very big Plan, it's taken a long time to prepare, there are a lot of policies in it, but crucially going to the heart of the matter there is a different policy set, a different way of thinking. So I come back to the issue, the narrow issue, that the Deputies of St.  Clement have raised. How vulnerable are the lands which they consider to be anomalies to the line as redrawn? I say to them that they are nowhere near as vulnerable as was the case under the '87 Plan, the existing Plan, and that the Committee is entitled to adopt, if this Plan is adopted, a different and new approach to the way those sites are considered. I hope Members will appreciate that that is a significant shift in the way Planning is conducted and it will alleviate some of their concerns about the way in which the line was drawn.

PRESS RELEASE

14 November 2002     F o r  N  e w s d e s k s    

ISLAND PLAN 2002 – BUILT-UP AREA

The Planning & Environment Committee wishes to make it clear that there is no presumption in favour of development in the Built-Up Area in the new Island Plan.

While there is a possibility that development will be allowed on undeveloped land in these areas, the new Island Plan  also  includes  General  Policies  which  will,  in  certain  circumstances,  circumscribe  the  potential  for development.

In particular, Policy G2 of the Plan requires applicants to demonstrate

1. t h at their proposals will not unreasonablyaffect the character and amenity ofthearea, and
2. w i llnot have anunreasonableimpactonneighbouring uses and the local environmentbyvisual intrusion or otheramenityconsiderations.

In addition, proposals will have to meet a number of other detailed planning considerations.

The Committee wants to make it absolutely clear, as it told the States in July, that there is no automatic presumption in favour of development in the Built-Up Area.

Senator N.L. Querée P.C.F. Thorne President Director of Planning

Tel: 883571 Tel: 601402

REPORT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE _______________________________________________________________

8/36/1       1 2 F e b r u ar y 2 0 0 3    

ISLAND PLAN 2002

Built up Area boundary definition and policy

1. P u r poseof the report

1 . 1 . In the course of the determination of planning applications, Members have raised concerns

relating to the definition of and policy regime applicable to the Built up Area boundary as defined in the new Island Plan 2002. The purpose of this report is to provide the reasoned justification for this element of the Plan.

2. B a c kground

2 .1 . D  uring the States Assembly's deliberations regarding the new Island Plan in July 2002 Deputies

G. and H.  Baudains of St.  Clement sought a reference back on this issue of the definition of th Built up Area boundary. An accusation was levelled at the Planning and Environment Committee that it had acted in an underhand way in reviewing the Built up Area boundary, the implications of which would mean, according to the Deputies Baudains', a rash of new development on green spaces within and at the edge of the Island's urban areas.

2 .2 . T h e accusation of a lack of transparency was withdrawn as were the proposals for a reference back

on the basis of an acceptance by the St.  Clement deputies that the final draft of the Island Plan was the result of a very open and inclusive process of consultation.

2 .3 . T h is is not believed to be the issue with which present Members of the Committee are concerned,

however  and,  for  the  purpose  of  providing  background  information,  appendices  1  and  2 respectively give details of the information provided by the Department in response to the issues raised and the response given to the Assembly by the then Vice-President, Deputy Alastair Layzell during the Island Plan debate.

2 .4 . T h e substantive issues for the present Committee are, however, believed to be the definition of the

Built up Area boundary and the policy regime applicable to it. These issues were addressed during the States debate and were accepted by the Assembly unanimously and on a standing vote, only seven months ago, but are revisited here in accord with the wishes of the Committee.

3. B u  ilt up Area boundary 3 .1 . D efinition

3 .2 . T  here are a number of distinct reasons for the review of the Built up Area boundary (BUA)

undertaken as an integral part of the Island Plan Review. These are summarised below:

  O u t d a t e d n e s s o f 1 9 87 Island Plan BUA

3 . 2 .1 . T h e  outdatedness  of  the  1987  Island  Plan  was  apparent  on  a  daily  basis  from  the

perspective of development control. Significant urban areas e.g. Maufant, were, in the 1987 plan, defined as being outwith the BUA and thus effectively in the countryside' which would require development proposals to be considered under landscape protection policies (such as the old Green Zone, Agricultural Priority Zone and SLAAP Zone, policies). Consequently, a comprehensive review of the BUA was undertaken to resolve this issue. Tables one and two of Appendix  3 list the principal changes in definition of the BUA between the 1987 and 2002 Island Plans.

  S tr a t e g ic o b j e ct i v e s

3 .2 . 2 . I t i s important to relate the specific policies and land-use zonings of the Island Plan to the

overall strategic policy objectives that it sets out to achieve. In the context of the definition of the BUA, there are two key strategic objectives that are of particular relevance:

  S p a t ia l  s t r a te g y  

  3 .2  .2 . 1 . T h e s p a ti a l strategy of the new Island Plan sets the framework for land use to

achieve the objectives of sustainable development and protection of the Island's environment. What this means is that the policy seeks to ensure that new development is well related to the existing BUA in order that goods and services are easier to access, and that the best of the Island's coastal and rural environment is protected from development.

3 . 2 .2 . 2 . T h e re d e f inition of the BUA sought to contribute towards this objective by

providing opportunities that are well related to existing urban areas but which have a minimal impact on the rural landscape.

  E c o n o m  ic   a n d  c o m m  u n it y  strategy

  3 .2 . 2 .3 . A  c h ie v i n g t he vision and objectives of the Island Plan requires the promotion and

facilitation of development opportunities that are essential to the Island's economy and community life. This includes providing opportunities for new housing development, in accord with the spatial strategy, and to ensure that there is a balance between the different types of housing provision.

  3 .2 . 2 .4 . T  h er e is a r equirement and demand for homes across all tenures. The Plan sets out

to allocate specific areas of land for Category A type housing (social rent and first-time buyer homes) and these are safeguarded for this particular purpose. The Plan also has to have regard for the provision of development opportunities for other types of housing which are secured through open market windfall' development: Category B (private sector homes). The provision of Category B windfall' housing development will make an important contribution to the overall provision of homes in the Island during the Plan period.

3 . 2 .2 . 5 . O w ing to the tight' definition and the strict application of the 1987 BUA,

opportunities for windfall development within the 1987 Island Plan BUA boundary were considered to be limited. It was, therefore, a specific objective of the review of the BUA to effectively loosen' the BUA boundary in order to create opportunity for new windfall development, in accord with the spatial strategy of the Plan, which is to focus new development where it is well related to the existing urban area.

  3 . 2 .2 . 6 . E x t ra c t s f r om the Island Plan 2002, at appendix  4, provide further information

about the contribution of Category  B homes to the overall supply of housing over the Plan period.

3 .3 . P o licy regime

3 .4 . A  s rehearsed during the Island Plan debate in July 2002, the crux of this matter relates to the

policy regime applicable to development proposals that fall within the BUA boundary. It is important to note that the 1987 Island Plan Built up Area boundary effectively conferred a presumption in favour of development which was not qualified in any way within the limited policy framework provided by the 1987 Island Plan.

3 .5 . W  hilst the 2002 Island Plan might build upon some of the principles set down in 1987, it is an

entirely different document and provides a much richer policy framework within which development proposals

are required to be considered.

3 .6 . I t thus engenders a new approach to the consideration of development proposals, including those

for sites within the BUA, and replaces the unqualified presumption in favour of development, which existed in the 1987 Plan, with a heavily qualified presumption. This is effected, in the case of proposals for housing development within the BUA, by policies such as G2, G3 and H8, which are reproduced at appendix 5. A press release (at appendix 6), which sought to quash speculation about unchecked' development on sites which had been included within the BUA in the 2002 Island Plan, was issued in November under the auspices of the former Committee, to reinforce the policy basis of the BUA.

3 .7 .  T  hese policies provide a number of rigorous criteria which applications for development are

required to have regard to and to comply with. The policies are designed to ensure that inappropriate development within the BUA is resisted and they serve to provide the Committee with an effective armoury and a great degree of control to bring this about.

4. S u m maryandconclusions

4 . 1 . W hilst the basis for the Committee's deliberations concerning the proposed development of

previously undeveloped sites within the new BUA are acknowledged it is considered, having regard to the above, that the justification for the inclusion of such sites within the BUA is sound and that there exists, within the rich and extensive policy regime provided by the new Island Plan, a significant degree of control to ensure that inappropriate and unsympathetic development on these sites is resisted.

4 .2 . I t is also considered important to note that the 2002 Island Plan represents a comprehensive and

integrated policy document that has the weight of recent and extensive public and political scrutiny behind it and that to seek to amend any element of this policy framework in an ad hoc manner so soon after its unanimous approval would seek to undermine the validity of the process of its production and the document itself.

4 . 3 . O n the basis of the above, it is recommended that the Environment and Public Services

Committee:

4 .3 . 1 . n o te s and endorses the contents of this report and thus seeks to determine applications

within the defined Built up Area, as set out in the Island Plan, in accord with the relevant policy framework provided therein.

Island Plan Debate

Reference Back – Debating Points Process/Sequence of Events

• C  o n sultation draft published June 2001 (13  months ago) preceded by presentation to States members at St. Paul's Centre

• E x h i bited on large scale maps at manned exhibitions in each parish hall in June/July 2001

• D  is c ussed in public meetings in each parish hall in June/July 2001

• C o n s ultant's presentation specifically drew attention to the designation of Built-up areas

• S e p a rate permanent exhibition at the Esplanade for 4 weeks in June/July 2001

• C e r t ain draft boundaries the subject of written representations

• A  ll w  ritten representations considered by independent reviewer, Professor Patrick McAuslan

• P &  E C considered McAuslan's recommendations and all written representations

• P &  E C changed some boundaries as a result

• M  e e tings were held with Parishes of St.  Martin and St.  John, at the Parishe'srequest to discuss details of

Draft Plan, including boundaries

• D  ra f t Plan lodged 30 April 2002 – 10 weeks ago

• M  e e ting of States members 23 May in States Chamber to discuss Draft Plan

• P a r is h Assembly in St.  Lawrence at request of Constable to discuss details of Draft Plan

• M  a tt er raised by Deputies Baudains in States on 2  July – 9  weeks after lodging; 1 week before debate

Other Debating Points

• A  f u ndamental purpose of the Island Plan Review was to classify settlements and re-assess boundaries

• P r o c ess explained in Consultation Draft Plan, exhibitions and presentations at public meetings

• S e n a tor Kinnard's statement about U.K. processes is totally incorrect (notice boards on sites). We have designed the process in Jersey, so far as Law and States' procedures allow, to mirror the process adopted

in U.K. for the preparation of development plans I t i s the responsibility of States members to scrutinise the Plan in the interests of the public at large and their constituents in particular. Many clearly did – unfortunately some didn't N  o S  tates member justifiably can claim to be unaware of the process involved in or the content of the review of the 1987 Plan

Island Plan Team – 10 July 2002

ISLAND PLAN 2002

Island Map changes

TABLE ONE

Existing settlements not identified in the Built-Up Area of the 1987 Island Plan identified on the Jersey Island Plan Consultation Draft 2001

St. George's Estate La Rue des Landes, St. Peter

St. Mary's Village La Ville Emphrie, St. Lawrence

Carrefour Selous Le Mont Félard (top)

Mont Mado Le Mont au Prêtre/Oaklands

Trinity Village Maufant

St. Martin's Village St. Saviour's Hospital

Victoria Village Teighmore Park, Grouville

Sion Le Parcq de L'Oeillière

St. Lawrence Church Petit Port Close

St. Peter's Village Le Mont a la Brune Estate

Rozel

TABLE TWO

Significant additions to the Built-Up Area of the 1987 Island Plan identified on the Jersey Island Plan Consultation Draft 2001

Belle Vue, Les Quennevais St. Saviour's Church and Parish Hall

Madeleine Estate, La Moye Les Varines

La Route Orange (south) New JCG and all-weather sports pitch

St. Brelade's Bay (part) New Zealand Avenue

Les Ruisseaux/Noirmont Brickfield Lane

La Rue de Haut, St. Lawrence Le Bernage/New York Lane

Les Champs, Le Mont Cochon FB Fields

St. Anne's Terrace La Rue de Samarès (part: West Riding and

L'Industrie)

Haute Vallée School/Halcyon House Pontorson Lane/Le Rocquier School

Le Clos de la Ville Hospice and Grouville School Primary School

playing fields

La Pouquelaye Cemetery Housing sites rezoned in 1989 e.g. Sydney Crill

Park

Mont-à-l'Abbé School and grounds Housing sites rezoned in 1999 e.g. Hodge

Nurseries

FCJ/Grainville St. John's Village

TABLE THREE

Significant changes to the Jersey Island Plan Consultation Draft 2001 identified on the Jersey Island Plan Final Draft 2002

Additions Reductions

St. John's Village (at request of Connétable ) Les Varines (south)

La Rue de Samarès (part: L'Industrie) There are innumerable minor changes to the 1987 Built-up area boundaries

Extract from 2002 Island Plan Housing Chapter Windfall Development

The  contribution  that  windfall  development  (i.e.  conversions,  changes  of  use,  redevelopment  and  infill development) will make to the supply of housing units has been estimated using the average contribution over the period 1990 to 2000, and assuming that this trend will continue at the same rate.

It  is  recognised  that  basing  future  windfall  estimates  on  past  trends  is  not  generally  considered  to  be  an appropriate practice in urban capacity because changes in policies point to increasing densities and greater yields. In Jersey, however, the strict application of the built-up area boundary throughout the period of the 1987 Island Plan has led to high densities within the built-up area as opportunities for infill and conversions have been taken up. The opportunities for infill over the Plan period will therefore reduce. However, it is anticipated that proposed amendments to the built-up area boundary, designed to accommodate development according to the Spatial Strategy outlined in Section 3 of this Plan, will counteract this effect.

Over the fifteen years from 1986 to 2001 there was an annual average of 201 Category  B homes developed across the Island. Assuming that overall the total for Category  B will continue at the same rate, 1,005 would be expected between 2002 and 2006. Subtracting the supply of Category  B from the town opportunities and the Waterfront, and using proportions from recent years, it is estimated that there will be 460  windfall homes in the parishes outside the main urban area of St.  Helier, St.  Clement and St.  Saviour over the five years. In addition to the tow centre  windfall  opportunities  in  the  town  of  St. Helier  described  earlier,  it  is  estimated  that  there  will  be 155  Category  B dwellings arising in the town from conversions and changes of use.

Summary of Supply

Table  8.4 summarises the estimated contribution of each of the sources to the future supply of homes during the first half of the Plan period. A proportion of the supply identified for Category  B may in fact be taken forward for Category A, but at present this is all included under Category  B. The level of supply of Category  A homes from 2007 to 2011 is not known at present as sites will be brought forward by the Jersey housing task force following the monitoring of completions and housing requirements.

Table 8.4: Supply of Homes from Existing Sources 2002-2006

Policy regime in the BUA

POIJCY G2 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development:

1. w  il l notunreasonably affect thecharacterandamenityof the area;
2. w i llnot have an unreasonableimpactonneighbouring uses and the localenvironment by reasonof visual intrusion orother amenity considerations;
3. w  ill not have an unreasonable impacton agricultural land;
4. w  ill not have an unreasonableimpacton the landscape, ecology,archaeologicalremains or architectural features and includes whereappropriatemeasures for the enhancement of such features and the landscapingof the site;
5. in c orporates satisfactory provisionof amenity and publicopenspacewhere appropriate;
6. w ill not have an unreasonable impact on important open space or natural or built features, including trees, hedgerows,banks,walls and fosses;
7. p rovides a satisfactory means ofaccess,manoeuvringspacewithin the site and adequate space for parking;

(viii) w ill not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, safety or parking;

9. i s accessible by pedestrians, cyclists andpublic transport users, including those with mobility impairments;
10. w i llnot have an unreasonableimpacton public health, safety and the environment by virtue of noise, vibration, dust, light, odour,fumes,electro-magnetic fields or effluent;
11. i s not at risk from flooding ordoesnotincreasetheriskof flooding elsewhere;
12. d oesnot have an unreasonableimpacton the safe operations of the Airport;

(xiii) w here possible makes efficient use of construction and demolition materials to avoid

generation of waste and to ensure the efficient use of resources;

14. t akes into account the need to designoutcrime and to facilitate personal safety and security;
15. en courages energy efficiency through building design, materials, layout and orientation; and
16. i ncludes the provision of satisfactory mains drainageand other service infrastructure.

Applications which do not comply with these principles will not normally be permitted. POLICY G3 – QUALITY OF DESIGN

A high standard of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and the built context will be sought in all developments. The Planning  and  Environment  Committee  will  require  the  following  matters  to  be  taken  into account as appropriate: