Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fourth amendment.

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): FOURTH AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 14th April 2011 by Senator J.L. Perchard

STATES GREFFE

2011   Price code: B  P.48 Amd.(4)

ISLAND PLAN 2011: APPROVAL (P.48/2011): FOURTH AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

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

1. there be added to the list of sites to be zoned for Category A housing at Policy H1: Category A housing sites (on page 246):

4.  Longueville  Nurseries,  New  York  Lane,   St. Saviour  (2.1 acres/

4.75 vergées).';

2. the revised draft Island Plan 2011 be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of (a);
3. the Proposals Map be amended to reflect the adoption of (a)."

SENATOR J.L. PERCHARD

NOTE:

The consequential amendments would include amendments to Proposal 17: Provision of  homes  (page 242);  Table 6.3:  Supply  of  homes  2011–2020  (page 238);  and Table 6.4: Net housing supply 2011–2020 (page 239); to be amended accordingly to reflect the potential additional yield of 10–15 homes from the zoning of this site; and there may be others.

REPORT

The First draft of the new Island Plan was published as a White Paper in September 2009.  This  document  included  an  Appendix B4,  which  identified  and  proposed Longueville Nurseries, New York Lane, St. Saviour as a suitable site for the delivery of Category A housing. I copy in full at the end of this report the proposal B4 – Longueville Nurseries – as proposed in the 2009 Draft Island Plan.

There were, I understand, some objections to the proposed rezoning, including one raised from the Connétable of St. Saviour who "argued that the Parish had met its share of development; that this was another example of "creep" – pieces of land being gradually infilled; that there were traffic problems, especially at the nearby junction; and that there was a lot of opposition to the development.".

Objections  and  serious  analysis  of  all  sites  were  encouraged  as  a  result  of  the extension from 3 to 6 months of the period for public consultation. This was to be the very first time that a development plan had been subjected to such an open, transparent and detailed process of public examination on the Island.

The objections were subject to the rigours of a meticulous Independent Enquiry, where expert scrutiny and analysis of all the facts by means of "Examination in Public" were undertaken by 2 Planning Inspectors.

Despite the few localised objections, it is important to note that the Independent Inspectors made an unequivocal recommendation to the Minister and the States in Volume 1, Chapter 8 of their report, "that the Minister should not delete the allocation of this site for Category A housing from the Plan.".

I reproduce below the relevant paragraphs from the Independent Inspectors' report. EXTRACT FROM INSPECTORS' REPORT, VOLUME 1:

"8.62  On the sites in Policy H1 we recommend that the Samarès Nursery

site and the Longueville Nurseries site should be retained in the IP as originally proposed. We have also indicated support for the possible future development of part of the land to the west of the Longeuville site, subject to further investigation, should the need arise.

Longueville Nurseries.

50. The issues in relation to this site are similar. It also scored "Good", "High",  "Good",  and  "Good"  in the  Suitability  for  Housing Assessment. Constable Hanning and Deputy Vallois (among others) had written to us objecting to this development, and the Constable took part in the EiP debate. He argued that the Parish had met its share of development; that this was another example of "creep" – pieces of land  being  gradually  infilled;  that  there  were  traffic  problems, especially  at  the  nearby  junction;  and  that  there  was  a  lot  of opposition  to the  development.  Mr  Stein  and  the  site  owner,  Mr Hamon, spoke in favour of the site. It was previously developed land, close to St Helier and ideally located in relation to bus services and community facilities. It had support from TTS. Traffic from housing

development would be less than that from the garden centre. If it was not used for housing it might be developed for an alternative retail use (the Minister confirmed that this was lawfully possible). Mr Ransom, the leaseholder, accepted it was a good site for housing, but was concerned about the difficulty of finding an alternative site for his business.

51. Senator Le Main repeated his concerns about the shortage of sites for affordable housing and felt that this was one of the best brownfield sites available.
52. Having read all the representations in full and considered the debate at the EiP we conclude that this is a suitable site for housing. It is well located in relation to the IP strategy, with good services and facilities nearby. Though the traffic generation may be less than the garden centre, it will occur at peak times; however there are proposals to improve  the  junction  and  we  do  not  see  this  as  an  insuperable problem. We disagree with the Minister's proposed modification.
53. There are two other points to make. Mr Stein argued that the whole of the site should be allocated for development – not just the southern part. The Minister argued that the more substantial buildings were on the southern part and that as the land was rising development to the rear would be more obtrusive. We returned to the site to consider these points. We agree on balance with the Minister and recommend that, as proposed, development should be limited to the southern part of the site.
54. Secondly, there was a proposal before us to develop land immediately to the  west  of  the  Longueville  Nurseries  site  (number S5  in our classification), and it makes sense to deal with this now. The issues affecting  the  site –  location,  traffic,  services  etc –  are  virtually identical, except that the land – though not in use for any particular purpose, is not previously developed. It scored "Good",

The (Draft) Jersey Island Plan Inspectors' Report Chapter 8: Housing Page 60

"High",  "Good"  and  (because  it  is  not  brownfield  land)  "Poor"  in  the suitability assessment. The area which was put to us was large, and extended well to the north. We do not accept that the development of the whole of the site  would  be  appropriate;  it  would  be  prominent  and  intrusive.  But  in principle we see no reason why the southern section of the site (as far north as a  line  extending  westwards  from  the  proposed  development  on  the Longueville Nurseries site itself) should not be acceptable. This line is marked on the ground by a hedgerow. This has not been the subject of consultation; and a traffic assessment needs to be carried out to assess its effects. We do not recommend its immediate inclusion in the IP therefore. But, in the manner foreshadowed at para 8.41 above we recommend that the southern part of site S5 be borne in mind as a possible site for further development should future monitoring indicate an emerging unmet need for additional Category A housing depending on requirements at the time."

END OF QUOTE

I am very confused as to why this site was removed from the Draft Island Plan. It is clear that the proposal enjoyed Departmental officer support and there is no doubt that the Independent Inspector recommendation was for it to be retained in the plan.

I maintain that the price that an individual is required to pay for a home or a developer is required to pay for a site is dependant on availability of supply. Market forces exist in  this  area,  often  to  the  detriment  of  the  first-time  buyer  and  those  wishing  to purchase a lifelong family home. This site has the potential to provide between 20 and 30 Category A homes. The rezoning of this site will assist in our efforts to make housing  more  affordable,  and  importantly  was  recommended  after  the  exhaustive Public Enquiry process.

I ask members to support my amendment to include the Longueville Nurseries site (as outlined below) in the Island Plan, as a site for the delivery of Category A housing.

Financial and manpower implications

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

APPENDIX