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
ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – ELEVENTH AMENDMENT
(P.37/2014 Amd.(11)) – AMENDMENT
Lodged au Greffe on 20th May 2014 by Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade
STATES GREFFE
2014 Price code: A P.37 Amd. (11)Amd.
ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – ELEVENTH AMENDMENT (P.37/2014 Amd.(11)) – AMENDMENT
PAGE 2 –
For the words "amendments to Proposal 4a and Policies NE6 and NE7 (pages 73 to 102" substitute the words "amendments to Policy NE7 (pages 88 to 102".
DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE
REPORT
The Minister for Economic Development's amendment is intended to negate the Minister for Planning and Environment's proposal to clarify and provide a stronger, more objective basis for the planning policies for the Coastal National Park and Green Zones to prevent over-development and detrimental change in and of our very special coasts, landscapes and countryside outside the built-up area.
It is very surprising that 2 of our Ministers have been unable to resolve this vital environmental policy matter during the Island Plan review, and it is regrettable that the amendment puts both head-to-head in such an important policy. Members should note that the Island Plan review, which commenced in August last year and concluded this January on the planning website, records no written representation from the Minister for Economic Development nor his officers, amongst the hundreds recorded from the Public. Nor did the Minister, his Assistants or his officers attend the examination in public by the Planning Inspectors to express views on this policy, a process which was open to all States members. The Minister for Economic Development's amendment is in response to the views of some development interests which were aired at the Planning Inquiry. These views were in a minority and were not accepted by the Planning Inspectors. The Minister for Economic Development's arguments fail to recognise the important distinction between the Coastal National Park and Green Zone of the Island Plan.
Ever since the Planning Law was adopted, one of its principal purposes has been to ensure that the coast of Jersey is kept in its natural state, and in the public interest to impose necessary controls on the development of land in Jersey to protect Jersey's natural beauty, its character and physical and natural environments. For decades, the very best areas of our coasts and those of special landscape quality have been given the highest level of protection which our Planning Law can provide. In the 1987 Plan, they were part of the original Green Zone; in 2002, the special areas became the Zone of Outstanding Character; in 2011, the very special landscape areas went into the Coastal National Park comprising 17% of our land area, and the remaining 54% of countryside became the Green Zone. I believe that throughout this period it has been widely accepted by our community that our very special areas had to be conserved, and by and large these policies have been successful in doing so.
The Minister for Planning and Environment's rationale for clarifying and improving the Policy NE6 for the Coastal National Park is justified by the public representations and evidence submitted to the Inquiry, and is necessary in the face of increasing development pressure. His proposed changes are supported by the Planning Inspectors, apart from one part of Policy NE6 (part 6 for the re-development or conversion of existing buildings to residential), which is argued by the National Trust to be weaker than the existing policy. In this exception the Planning Inspectors advised that the policy should be no weaker than at present, which is the Minister for Planning and Environment's contention. I would hope that the Minister for Planning and Environment would consider making his own amendment to clarify this point, as the Law allows him to do, once the statutory deadline for members' amendments has passed.
I believe that the Minister for Economic Development's proposal to set aside the improvement proposed to the policy protection in the Coastal National Park zone is out of touch with the views of majority of the public. If it were to be adopted, it would
Page - 3
P.37/2014 Amd.(11)Amd.
send signals to open up our coasts and special areas to even greater development pressure.
My amendment seeks to ensure continued effective protection for our very special coasts and landscapes which comprise our Coastal National Park.
Financial and manpower implications
There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this amendment to the 11th amendment.