This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
r
ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): THIRTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) – AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 10th May 2011 by the Deputy of St. Mary
STATES GREFFE
2011 Price code: B P.48 Amd.(38)Amd.
ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): THIRTY-EIGHTH AMENDMENT (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) – AMENDMENT
1 PAGE 2, Amendment (2) –
After the word "parking" insert the words "(bearing in mind the potential for reducing the need for car ownership by the creation of car pooling schemes and other methods)".
2 PAGES 2 AND 3, Amendment (6) –
For the words "where such fees" substitute the words "to the extent that such fees".
DEPUTY OF ST. MARY
REPORT
Amendment (1)
All space is precious. The land bank is finite on Jersey, as we are all aware, and it is absolutely essential to use space in the best way possible. This requirement is even more acute in the more urban areas. If town-dwellers are to have adequate open space, whether private, within a housing development, or public, then we have to take the allocation of space seriously. We have to show by our decisions in the Plan that the talk about making town a nice place to live is not just hot air.
If this section of the amendment of the Connétable were to be carried unamended, then there would be a blanket requirement in the Island Plan to provide "adequate parking" without any consideration of what that might mean in practise, or of the space which is therefore lost to other uses.
I notice that other amendments talk of minimum room size standards, and adequate sound insulation. The Connétable 's amendment demands, and rightly so, adequate amenity space. All these are legitimate and important demands on space.
So this amendment qualifies the idea of providing adequate parking by suggesting that by the use of car-pool schemes, and perhaps by other methods also, precious land would be saved, and therefore could be applied to other uses.
In the Appendix, I copy some slides of a presentation on this issue by Michael Glotz- Richter, who works for the Ministry of Environment and Transport in the city of Bremen, as senior project manager for sustainable mobility', as a picture is worth a thousand words.
In summary, the Connétable 's amendment as it stands would impose an unfortunate restriction – this amendment is designed to bring some flexibility into the space equation.
Amendment (2)
The wording suggested by the Connétable is –
"Planning applications in respect of listed buildings or places will be exempt from planning fees where such fees would not have been payable were the building or place not listed.".
The revised wording proposed here is as follows –
"Planning applications in respect of listed buildings or places will be exempt from planning fees to the extent that such fees would not have been payable were the building or place not listed.".
It is a tidying-up amendment to avoid possible confusion, which I hope is self- explanatory.
Financial and manpower implications
There are no additional financial or manpower implications arising from this amendment to the thirty-eighth amendment.
APPENDIX