Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-seventh amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 26th April 2011 by Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: E  P.48 Amd.(27)

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words "except that –

1. for Section 6 Housing' (pages 223 to 268) and Appendix B Housing Site Assessments' substitute the following paragraph and Proposal –

6.1  The issue of Housing requires further consideration, and a revision

to the Plan on this subject will be presented separately to the States Assembly for approval at a later date.

Proposal 17 – Housing

The Minister will bring forward for approval by the States a revision to this Plan to make new provision for Housing. In the interim period Section 8 Housing' of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 will remain in force.'

and renumber the draft Plan accordingly;

2. in the section Superseded development plans (page xvii) after the words 5. Jersey  Island  Plan  2002,  as  amended' insert  the  words  (with  the exception of Section 8 – Housing')';
3. the revised draft Island Plan 2011 be further amended in such respects as may  be  necessary  as  a  result  of  the  deletion  of  Section 6  and Appendix B.".

DEPUTY S. POWER OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

I served on the Health, Social Security and Housing Scrutiny Panel between 2006 and 2008. I concentrated on the Scrutiny of Housing at that time. Latterly, I then spent over well over 2 years as either an Assistant Minister or Minister at the Housing Department. In that period between March 2007 and June 2010, I was also a member of the Planning Applications Panel.

I have become familiar with the major issues in the supply of housing on the Island. I am  not  as  concerned  with  the  provision  of  Category B  housing.  I  am  far  more concerned with the supply of Social Housing, First-Time Buyer housing and further provision of Homebuy or Deferred Payment housing.

This draft Island Plan in the section dealing with Housing is akin to trying to study the scaffold profile of a proposed building in thick, thick fog. I say this because the confusion in the role and definition of titles and responsibilities now at the Planning and  Environment  Department  confuses  many  and  this  Plan  reflects  this  internal confusion.

The draft Island Plan therefore, while dealing with planning and development matters, does  not  care  to  embody  these  terms  in  its  title,  presumably  because  these  are undesirable tags or taglines.

For  the  purposes  of  this  amendment,  I  shall  deal  solely  with  Housing,  as  to  do otherwise would involve withdrawing other sections of the draft.

This proposed draft Island Plan in its present form does not achieve any progress in the provision of much-needed housing and indeed, many assumptions are based on out-of-date evidence.

For these reasons and the following arguments in this amendment, I propose that the whole of Section 6 be withdrawn and be brought back to the Assembly at a time in the future in a form that is workable, or at least an improvement on what is included in this draft version provided to States Members.

In all this time, I am convinced that the States must show leadership in the provision of housing and not depend on developer-led supply.

States  Departments  and  Ministers  from  Treasury,  through  to  Planning  and Environment to Housing and Population are aware that, at the moment the demand for First-Time Buyer Housing is being held back by:

A:  the lack of supply of affordable First Time Buyer Housing in the price range; B:  the lack of availability of mortgage finance and developer finance;

C:  co-ordination for the future provision of affordable housing, through planned

supply with the assistance of Planning and Treasury together is nil.

Policy H3: Affordable Housing:

The essence of this section of the draft Island Plan is to state that a developer may not be granted consent for residential development unless that developer provides some percentage of affordable housing.

I think the principal and onus on the conditioning of future planning consents on developers as is specified in the section on H3 sites on page 255 is not workable. The policy states that on sites with a limited capacity:

1:  Supplementary Planning Guidance will be issued;

2:  Affordable housing will be provided by a commuted payment;

3:  The proportion of affordable housing to be provided will be increased over

time, rising from an initial rate of 12.5% to 20%.

There are 3 major problems here. There is no definition of commuted payment, there is no indication of supplementary planning guidance and the % rounding up on a small site discriminates against the developer of a small site.

For example, if a developer has a small site suitable for 3 houses, under the proposed Island Plan, one of the 3 houses would have to be affordable and would reach a percentage rate of 33%. Most developers would not be able to do this, owing to site value and costs on the Island.

The presumption in the draft Island Plan is for private development to lead in the supply of affordable housing. This simply will not work.

The  States itself,  through  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment,  led  in  the provision of deferred payment housing at La Providence and while 46 homes were delivered at an affordable price of about £260,000 at no cost to the taxpayer, the criticism  levelled  at  this  prototype  scheme  from  within  the  States  system  was lamentable.

Developer-led  affordable housing  schemes  are  unlikely  to  work  and it cannot  be considered as a reliable supply for affordable housing. Furthermore, it cannot be conditioned under a planning obligation.

Worse still, the supplementary planning guidance on La Providence has, to date, not been issued, and Appendix A of the draft Island Plan simply lists H3 and H4 as in both cases with supplementary planning guidance "to be developed". The concentration on private developer supply is folly.

States Departments such as Treasury and Planning need to lead and there is little or no evidence on this draft Plan.

Out of Date Data:

This draft Island Plan makes a number of assumptions based on the 2001 Census. This information is out-of-date and any new Island Plan should rely on up to date data. It is clear that the population has increased in the last 10 years. However, the extent of that increase is unclear, as some of the increase in net immigration in the past decade may have dissipated owing to the recent global recession. Therefore, given the assumptions

made  on  page 232  are  based  on  a  2001  statistic  of  32,700 private  dwellings  and 4,490 Housing Department dwellings. The former figure is a 2001 figure and the latter figure is a 2009 figure. It would be far more preferable to wait until the results of the 2011  Census  are  available  for  planning  purposes.  This  happened  in  2001  in  the composition of the 2002 Island Plan.

Housing Needs Survey 2007 (Published in 2008):

One of the most reliable sources of data on which to base housing needs is the most recent Housing Needs Survey (HNS) of 2007, published in 2008. The presentation on the Survey is attached as Appendix 1.

It is essential to realise that global circumstances have changed, but comparing the key findings and recommendations of this report with what is included in the Draft Island Plan leads me to believe that little or no attention has been paid to the HNS 2007.

The key findings of the HNS of 2008 were:

Housing Requirements by tenure

• notable potential shortfalls in 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom owner-occupier properties
• potential  surplus  of  1-bedroom  units  in  most  qualification  and  tenure categories:

but dependent on the complementary availability of larger accommodation so that households can move

Timing

• About are looking to move in the next 2 years

Affordability

• Existing households generally show understanding of Jersey property prices
• Concealed households indicated prices lower than mean selling prices for 2007.

First-Time Buyers

• FTB  show  a  large  demand  for  2-bedroom  properties  and  for  3-bedroom houses
• data on intended purchase price and household income => affordability
• 9 out of 10 want a standard mortgage
• If can't get a mortgage: would be interested in shared equity

In addition, the following was clearly stated: Older Persons' Housing

• Total 5-year shortfall of up to 400 units (upper bound)
• Additional demand of ~75 units for nursing/residential care

Residential qualification changes over the next 5 years:

Reducing the qualification period from 12 years down to 10 years:

• Increases potential shortfall in 2-,3- and 4-bed owner-occupier properties by > 200 units.

Net Migration

• net inward migration increases potential shortfall in 1- to 4- bedroom owner-occupier accommodation by 1½ % (35 properties in 5 years) for every additional 50 in-migrant households per year
• survey  results  provide  modelling  tool  to  address  any  profile  of  net migration

Five year shortfalls and surpluses by type and size of dwellings

- smaller-sized dwellings show potential surplus, over 1,300 1-bedroom units

- potential shortfalls occur in larger-sized dwellings, notably 2-, 3- and 4- bed houses

This data above contrasts with the table provided on page 238 of the draft Island Plan. This table bears no relation to the assessed demand shown by the HNS.

Table 6.3 Supply of Homes 2011–20

Delivery Period

Supply  2011–2015  2016–2020  Total

Category  Category  Category  Category A  B  A  B

2002 Island Plan Category A

125  0  0  0  125 housing (H2 sites)

2002 Island Plan amendment:

Lifelong and first-time buyer  300  0  0  0  300 homes

St. Helier Waterfront  0  600  0  400  1000 Town of St. Helier  75(1) 675  125(1) 625  1500 Windfall  75(1) 750  175(1) 700  1700 Rural Centres (Policy H5 Housing  25  0  75  0  100

in rural centres')

Rezoned Category A housing sites  125  0  0  0  125(2) (Category A housing')

States-owned land  50  0  100  0  150 Less outworn sites  -300  0  0  0  -300

Total  475  2,025  475  1,725  4,700

While economic circumstances have changed, these figures represent real people and by and large, they are still here. They economic recession has put the demand statistics in abeyance for 2, maybe 3 years. When the Island economy recovers, these demand figures will kick back in and the demand for housing along the lines of the HNS 2007.

The (Draft) Jersey Island Inspectors' Report:

The Planning Department went to some pain and effort to laud its public consultation efforts and, in doing so, retained 2 Planning Inspectors to carry out an independent inspection of the provisions within the Draft Island Plan. On looking through section 6 of the draft on Housing, there is no reference to the Planning Inspectors' report or any of its findings.

The relevant section of the report (pages 50 to 76) is attached in Appendix 2 of this amendment.

In summary, both Inspectors agreed the following –

1:  Page 61: 8.61. On sites in Policy H1, they recommended that the Samarès

Nursery site be included and retained in the draft Island Plan.

2:  Page 62: 8.66 to 8.76. The problem of affordability is complex and getting

worse in Jersey. The report lists in some detail the reservations many have in relation to the proposed H3 Policy and how the percentages for conditioning affordability supply on developers would be "cumbersome".

3:  Page 71: 8.111. One of the Inspectors, having expressed his reservations on

the H3 affordability model forced on developers, recommended that the model be relaxed in the early stages.

4:  Page 71. 8.115: The same Inspector further recommends that the scheme

should not be introduced immediately and that it should be phased in (if it had to be) gradually and over a period of time.

5.  Page 72: 8.121. He notes the lack of Supplementary Planning Guidance Notes and recommends that they need to "BE IN PLACE" with some priority.

It is odd in the extreme that there is no reference to the Independent Inspectors' report in the section on Housing. There are key findings here and key recommendations that would have materially changed the Draft Island Plan, had they been included.

Association of Jersey Architects Report:

The Association of Jersey Architects (AJA) played a full role in the evolution of the Draft Island Plan. They made submissions throughout the process, and made detailed statements  throughout  the  tenure  of  the  investigations  made  by  the  Independent Inspector. Their submission is included in Appendix 3 to this amendment.

Some key comments are as follows and are not included in the final Draft of the Island Plan.

0. Housing
1. The 2009 Draft Plan recognises the Plan is unlikely to make proper provision for Islanders housing needs, warning in para 4.10 (bold type as used in the Plan) that "It needs to be clearly recognised.

However, that unless land in the Built-up Area is developed at higher and more  land  efficient  densities  than  have  previously  been  achieved,  in accordance with the strategic policies of the Plan (Policy SP2 Efficient Use of Resources'), it will not be possible to meet all the Island's identified needs, particularly for housing, without reviewing the need to release greenfield sites for development during the Plan period."

This indicates the density of development within Built-up areas will have to dramatically increase to satisfy the Plan policies, overcoming other policies within the 2009 Draft Island Plan such as building height, Green Backdrop and skyline.

2. The concentration  and  intensification  of all  development  within   St. Helier risks further polarising serious social divides (the haves in country houses with have-nots in dense urban areas) and causing harmful damage denying our younger locals the opportunity of ever owning their own home. This approach was tried out in the 1960s with the urban high-rise developments, resulting in social problems.
3. There are glyph maps incorporated into the 2009 Draft Plan for virtually all demarcated zones/areas, except one delineating the proposed Built-up Area extent.

This is contained within the stakeholders' presentation and the lessons we learn from it are so important we reproduce it (by permission from Planning and Environment Department) herein.

Affordable Housing – Policy H3

10.11  The AJA is of the common opinion that the requirement to provide social housing  from  private  developments  will,  quite  simply,  bring  all  private housing developments over 2 or more units to a complete stop.

It  is  simply  unrealistic  to  expect  private  housing  purchasers,  through  the developer, to pay for 40% of the development being subsidised – whether this is by way of a commuted payment or actual homes makes no difference. For example a small development of 3 houses will require the developer to make a commuted  payment  equating  to  allocating  2  of  those  houses  as  low  cost homes.

Conclusions:

The Draft Island Plan in its present incarnation should not be used and should be withdrawn.

The 2002 Island Plan should be continued to be used until the 2011 Census results are published and made available to States Departments.

Many of the recommendations of the report of the Independent Inspectors have been ignored.

This draft Island Plan in the section dealing with Housing is akin to trying to study the scaffold profile of a proposed building in thick, thick fog. I say this because the confusion in the role and definition of titles and responsibilities now at the Planning and  Environment  Department  confuses  many  and  this  plan  reflects  this  internal confusion.

Almost 500 pages have been produced to tell the Island what is NOT possible and to be honest, it could have been a lot shorter. The section 6 on housing is particularly disappointing because it makes little or no provision for housing need in the next decade. Its legacy, if adopted, will heap problems on the next Minister for Planning and Environment, and it will result in major modification.

The demand for housing is in abeyance at the moment owing to the well-documented problems facing the banks and the poor availability of mortgage finance.

What is very clear is that the Council of Ministers are not working in unison. If they were, there would be an integrated approach by Treasury, Economic Development and Planning on the supply of affordable, First-Time Buyer and Homebuy Mark 2. There is  simply  no  evidence  of  this.  While  at  the  Housing  Department,  I  made  these warnings clear to the Council of Ministers many times.

This is so disappointing. Now is the time to invest in the local infrastructure when there is spare capacity in the construction industry. Now is the time to invest in drains, sewers, social housing, civic projects, even Fort Regent. Now is the time to use the Strategic Reserve wisely in creating local work using local contractors, local architects and local professionals.

What is equally clear to me is that, far from having a slowing effect on house prices, the supply of flats through extensive construction projects over the past 5 years will have a levelling-out effect on this sector of the market. However, the shortage and lack of availability of affordable houses, first-time buyer houses and Homebuy Mark 2 will have a profound effect, in my opinion on house prices, and these will inevitably spiral as soon as mortgage availability recovers.

There is no reference to the word planning or the word development in the title of the draft  Island  Plan.  The  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  has  also  assumed responsibility for the Island's International Relations and Affairs.

Two Assistant Ministers have been appointed, and as yet the delegated powers of the Deputy  of   St. Peter  for  Planning  and   Deputy  R.C.  Duhamel  of   St. Saviour  for Environment are not clear or easy to find or understand. The function and role of the Connétable of Trinity is clear, but the full role of the responsibilities of the Planning Applications Panel is not clear.

The Minister chooses to deal with certain applications himself, and what the Planning Applications Panel does or does not deal with is unclear. Plémont,  Field 621 and Field 1248 are clear examples of undefined boundaries and applications that have bounced from Minister to Panel and back again.

The Ministerial Planning meetings then add to the confusion with the Minister for the Environment,  the  Assistant  Minister  for  Planning,  the  Assistant  Minister  for  the Environment,  the  Chairman  of  the  Planning  Applications  Panel,  the  Director  of Planning and the Department Architect all appearing at Ministerial planning meetings.

Therefore, in the debate on the Draft Island Plan, I will play my part in working to getting it rejected.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no direct financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this amendment.

APPENDIX 1