Skip to main content

Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – sixth amendment

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) – SIXTH AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 6th May 2014 by Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade

STATES GREFFE

2014   Price code: C  P.37 Amd.(6)

ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – SIXTH AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

After the words "the revised draft revision to the Island Plan 2011" insert the words –

"except that the following additional revisions shall be made to the Island Plan 2011 in addition to the Minister's draft Revision –

  1. in the  preamble  to the  Shoreline  Policy  (page 139),  after paragraph 4.98,  insert  the  following  additional  paragraphs  (and renumber subsequent paragraphs as required) –

4.99 St. Brelade 's Bay is generally regarded as one of the most

beautiful natural bays in the Island. Successive development plans have sought to retain and protect its natural beauty and character whilst recognising its role as an attractive place for tourists and Islanders to visit and as a place to stay and live. Development  affecting  the  coastal  strip  of  this  bay,  as defined by the Shoreline Zone, has the potential to affect the special character of the whole bay.

4.100 Particular  care  is,  therefore,  required  to  ensure  that  the redevelopment  of  existing  buildings,  involving  their demolition and replacement; and/or the extension of existing buildings,  does  not  seriously  harm  the  character  of St. Brelade 's Bay. Accordingly, replacement buildings here should generally not be larger than that being replaced: in the case of tourism accommodation coming out of this use there is the possibility of reducing the visual impact of these often large buildings by some or all of: a reduced visual scale, mass and volume of a building, particularly where existing buildings are large; more sensitive and sympathetic siting  and  design;  materials,  colours  and  finishes  more sensitive to the character area. The design and scale of any extension in this part of the bay should remain subservient to the  existing  building  and  should  not  disproportionately increase its size. The cumulative enlargement of buildings over time will be also be a material consideration.';

  1. in Policy BE4  (Shoreline  Zone)  (page 140)  after  the  words 3. development which adversely affects public access to and along the coastline and seafront.' insert the words –

Within  the  Shoreline  Zone  for   St. Brelade 's  Bay,  the following  forms  of  development  will  not  normally  be approved:

4.  the redevelopment of a building, involving demolition and replacement, where the proposal would be larger in terms of any of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than the building being replaced;

5.  the extension of a dwelling, where the proposal:

  1. is not  subservient  to the  existing  building  in terms of design and scale;
  2. is not designed appropriately relative to existing buildings and its context;
  3. having  regard  to its  planning  history, disproportionately  increases  the  size  of  the building in terms of any of its gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact.' ".

DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

For decades, St. Brelade 's Bay has been recognised as one of the most beautiful bays in Jersey. The south-facing land behind the sandy foreshore of sand dunes and coastal plain is completely enclosed by the steep wooded escarpment to the north and the coastal national park to the east and west.

Some early residential development in the bay took place during the 1920s and 1930s. After the occupation, the post-war tourism expansion saw the development of large hotels right on the shoreline damaging the bay from over-development. There was an urgent need for car parking and other support infrastructure. This prompted the States to bring forward the Barrett Plan in 1963, which proposed that land on the shoreline should be used as open space.

This plan was rejected, but in 1968 the States approved the St. Brelade 's Bay Plan, which limited the further extension of hotels and residential development. For 20 years this plan succeeded in preventing new development. A copy of this plan is included in the 1968 Report which was an Appendix to the 2011 amendment to the Island Plan lodged by former Deputy Jeune (see Appendix 2).

The 1987 Island Plan further protected the bay by introducing the green backdrop zone into  the  bay.  Development  was  permitted  in  this  zone,  provided  the  landscape remained prominent. The shoreline zone in the bay was also established to protect open views and public access. Both zones exist today, and are still the main planning tools we have to conserve the character of the bay and to prevent over-development.

In 1989 the Island Development Committee ("IDC") set up a new study group to secure environmental improvements in the bay, and adopted a plan to take advantage of the opportunities for future improvements and guide development decisions.

In 2002 the revised Island Plan consolidated this work, but no new actions were introduced. In 2011, former Deputy Jeune successfully proposed an amendment to the plan (see Appendix 2), which introduced a requirement for updated supplementary planning guidance because of the pressures on the bay. This was incorporated into the 2011 Island Plan.

The 2011 Island Plan included a commitment to a more detailed planning framework for the bay: "particularly the defined built up area including those parts of the built up area within the green backdrop and shoreline zones to ensure that the redevelopment and redevelopment of existing buildings in particular is sympathetic to its context and does not detract from the visual amenity of the bay and the public enjoyment of it."

Unfortunately,  as  at  May  2014,  neither  this  development  framework  nor supplementary  planning  guidance  have  been  produced  or  commenced,  and  the pressures from speculative redevelopment of the bay have further increased a recent decision to approve a single residential property of some 14,000 square feet.

As well as development pressure, there is another reason for strengthening the policy in this review .The 2011 Plan put in place the Coastal National Park, which includes most of our spectacular coasts where little or no development had taken place. This policy affords all the coastline going westwards from west of St. Brelade , St. Ouen 's Bay, the north and east coast, around to Gorey. These coasts of outstanding landscape

character are given the highest level of protection our planning regime can afford. Because there has been over-development of existing properties in this zone leading to strongly  negative  public  reaction,  the  Minister  is  now  proposing  to  introduce objectives measures. The Minister's proposed change will limit the replacement of existing properties within the Coastal National Park and Green Zone to the existing footprint and floor area of the building being replaced.

The remaining part of the coastline was assigned into the built-up areas, including a substantial part of St. Brelade 's Bay. The new restrictions proposed by then Minister on the Coastal National Park will succeed in this zone, but it will have effect of intensifying the damaging trend towards acquisition of modest dwellings occupying coastal  sites  in  the  shoreline  zone  and  their  replacement  with  very  much  larger properties,  and  will  intensify  the  development  and  occupation,  especially  in St. Brelade 's Bay. Current policies for this built-up zone area already encourage high- density development. Pressures on St. Brelade 's Bay are certain to increase.

A recent planning decision for a property in the bay have led to significant public concern, and calls for the Island Plan's policies for the bay to be strengthened to prevent over-development and damaging changes to the character of the bay.

Because the Minister is now proposing to introduce objectives measures which limit the replacement of existing properties within the Coastal National Park and Green Zone  to  the  existing  footprint  and  floor  area  of  the  building  being  replaced,  the pressures are likely to increase on St. Brelade 's Bay.

On 29th April 2014, in response to concerns, I held a public meeting at St. Brelade 's parish hall to hear the views of residents. The meeting was attended by planning officers and over 80 members of the public, including residents. There was unanimous support for action to progress the local development plan for the bay, and a volunteer parish group was reformed to work with planning professionals. It is essential this work  is  supported  by  professional  resources,  either  by  planning  officers  or  by consultancy requiring funding.

In  his  reply  to  my  oral  question  on  29th  April  2014,  the  Minister  indicated  his willingness to consider providing professional and or financial support to carry out this work. In a subsequent meeting with him, the Minister will need to agree the scope of the project and the parish formal recognition of the Local Development Plan project confirmed. This project is likely to take between 8 and 12 months to complete. It is hoped that this will be confirmed by the time of the debate on my amendment. Until the  Local  Development  Plan  is  completed,  the  Minister  will  be  unable  to  issue supplementary planning guidance to relieve development pressures.

The  public  meeting  on  29th  April  2014  overwhelmingly  supported  calls  for  a strengthening of the policies for the bay to prevent over-development and conserve the character of the bay. My follow-up meeting with the planning officers and Minister on 30th April identified that the best way this could be achieved would be to strengthen the shoreline zone policy for St. Brelade 's Bay.

The change proposed is to adopt the same policy change in the shoreline zone of the built zone by imposing a restriction on the size of extensions to existing buildings and replacement buildings permitted, as the Minister is now proposing to do in the Coastal National Park. My amendment provides the required objective criteria for determining

planning applications. Development control decisions which have already been made will be unaffected by the change in policy I am proposing.

Although the shoreline zone also extends to other built-up areas, e.g. in St. Aubin's Bay and Grouville Bay where the same considerations will apply, I have limited my amendment to the section of shoreline zone in St. Brelade 's Bay, since the public meeting confirmed that area.

My amendment offers a stronger policy. It includes a new objective measure which meets the criteria for a robust and workable planning policy, allowing change to happen, but managing it to prevent over-development. The policy sits squarely within the purpose of the Planning Law, i.e. to keep Jersey coasts in its natural state. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment and members will adopt it as part of the amendments to the Island Plan 2011.

Financial and manpower implications

There  are  no  resource  implications  from  the  amendment  to  Policy BE4  for  the shoreline zone; however, I have been advised that the Department's ability to produce the  Local  Development  Plan  for   St. Brelade 's  Bay  within  the  resources  of  the Department of the Environment will be reviewed by the Minister for Planning and Environment in partnership with the parochial authority. If the Department resources are insufficient, the Minister will consider providing financial support. If this should become necessary, my estimate this cost is between £25,000 – £40,000. Additional funding of £100,000 was provided to the Department as a result of my amendment to the MTFP for 2012 – 2014. I would request that this work be given priority by the Minister.

APPENDIX 1

APPENDIX 2

Related Publications

Propositions

Amendments

Comments

Votes

Vote: Adopted 16 July 2014

Minutes

Hansard