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

STATES OF JERSEY

ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – EIGHTH 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.(8)

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

PAGE 2 –

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

"except that –

1. on page 254, for the heading above paragraph 6.132, substitute the heading Provision of sheltered housing, lifelong dwelling homes for over-60s and housing to meet special requirements';
2. in paragraph 6.134, after the words requirement for', insert the words sheltered housing, lifelong dwellings for over-60s and';
3. in paragraph 6.135,  before  the  word  located'  insert  the  word normally';
4. after  paragraph 6.135,  insert  an  additional  paragraphs 6.136 and 6.137 as follows (and renumber subsequent paragraphs) –

6.136  It is essential that the importance of maintaining the network

of familial and community support enjoyed by people living in their particular community, wherever it is in the Island, not  just  in  the  rural  centres,  is  recognised  in  making provision for new homes to meet the needs of an ageing society. With an emphasis on supporting people to live in their own homes, support networks will become increasingly important for people's quality of life and their care. The Minister for Planning and Environment will, in partnership with the Strategic Housing Unit over the lifetime of the Plan, review the need for sheltered housing, lifelong dwellings for over-60s  and  housing  to  meet  special  requirements.  The Minister will work with relevant stakeholders, including the parochial authorities throughout the Island, to ensure that lifelong  dwellings  for  over-60s,  sheltered  housing  and special needs are provided to meet the community's needs. This can be provided for in the Built-up Areas under the existing provisions of the Plan, and elsewhere in partnership with the parishes, either through Local Development Plans or Village Plans (at Proposal 14 and 15 respectively), where a specific emphasis and scope can be given to the need for, and provision of, specific sites to provide homes close to the local supporting infrastructure, that meet the needs of an ageing society within an existing community.

6.137  Where, in response to local need, Local Development Plans or Village Plans includes specific proposals by the parochial authorities for the development of sheltered housing, lifelong homes  for  over-60s  and  housing  to  meet  special requirements outside the existing Built-up Area boundary, this will require the approval of the States to the rezoning of

the land as part of a further revision of the Island Plan during the Plan period.';

5. for Policy H7 on page 255 substitute the following policy – Policy H7

Sheltered  housing,  lifelong  dwellings  for  over-60s  and housing to meet special requirements

Proposals for sheltered housing, lifelong dwellings for over- 60s and housing to meet special requirements, including the specific  needs  of  those  with  disabilities,  and  including residential  care  and  nursing  homes,  will  be  permitted provided that the development –

1. meets a local area, parish or Island-wide need;
2. is sited within the Built-up Area boundary;
3. complies with other policies of the Island Plan.';

6. After Policy H7 insert a new Proposal H4 as follows – Proposal H4

The  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  will,  in partnership with the Strategic Housing Unit over the lifetime of the Plan, review the need for sheltered housing, lifelong dwellings  for  over-60s  and  housing  to  meet  special requirements.  The  Minister  will  work  with  relevant stakeholders, including the parochial authorities throughout the  Island,  to  ensure  that  sheltered  housing,  lifelong dwellings  for  over-60s  and  housing  to  meet  special requirements are provided during the Plan period to meet the community's needs.' ".

DEPUTY J.H. YOUNG OF ST. BRELADE

REPORT

The  Minister's  review  of  the  2011  Island  Plan,  in  my  opinion,  plays  down  the importance  of  having  planning  policies  which  specifically  address  the  housing requirement  of  our  ageing  population;  and  gives  inadequate  recognition  of  the contribution which such targeted policies for sheltered housing and lifelong dwellings for  over-60s  can  make.  It  would  help  the  big  picture  of  housing  our  working population by releasing family homes into the housing pool; this in turn could reduce our need to build new homes to meet the backlog of both social rented and first-time buyer homes.

Such targeted policies for meeting the future housing needs of our ageing population can also produce big intangible benefits in the quality of Island life, in sustaining balanced communities and by providing supporting environments in which those of advanced  years  can  remain  independent  and  lead  active  lives;  even,  for  some, postponing the need for special residential care. Such a policy has the potential to save money, by reducing the cost of the call on the taxpayer to meet the ever-increasing health services costs.

Throughout the Island Plan review, I have argued for specific planning policies to ensure  the  availability  of  sheltered  housing  and  lifelong  dwellings  for  over-60s throughout all parts of the Island, so that people seeking or having to move into such specialised housing would be enabled to remain in the community where they have spent  most  of  their  lives,  and  where  they  have  social  and  family  connections. Appendix 4 includes the relevant extract from my submission to the Planning review.

The arguments for such policies were clearly set out in great detail by the previous Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  in  his  2 propositions –  P.61/2007  and P.75/2008 – which rezoned 8 sites in the parishes for a significant number of lifelong homes. This, I believed, provided a successful model.

The parishes have for many years, possibly because of their previous custodianship of parish welfare, recognized the overwhelming social and financial benefit of providing support to enable the elderly to continue independent living rather than going into residential care. St. Ouen , St. Peter , St. Lawrence , St. Martin , Grouville and Trinity all have successful sheltered housing developments. The previous Minister recognised the key role which the parishes play in helping to deliver, or supporting the development of, homes which will enable the elderly to remain in or return to their parish of origin. Sadly, it seems that our present Minister for Planning and Environment has neither recognised nor embraced their role. This was quite apparent from the frustration and difficulties experienced by St. Martin and St. Ouen in bringing forward their parish- led schemes. This was very evident at the Planning Inquiry.

I have included extracts of the previous Minister's reports relating to over-55s housing at Appendix 2. The original report, which was the basis of the previous Minister's policy, was produced by the cross-department working group supported by Professor Malcolm Johnson , Director at the International Institute for Health and Ageing. In my view, their findings are even more valid today. At that time, their report was backed up by evidence which confirmed the need for sheltered and over-55s homes, the Housing Need Survey of 2004 which projected a major shortfall for 2005–9 , and the 2006 Annual Social Survey.

The present Minister for Planning and Environment has since had the benefit of the 2007 Housing Needs Survey, from which Jersey's Housing Assessment 2008–2012 was produced. This was one of the core documents of the Island Plan 2011 review, and the latest statistical information considered. I have enclosed in Appendix 1 the section  entitled  "older  persons  housing".  It  predicts  a  total  shortfall  of  some 400 dwellings for older persons in a 5 year period. The important report indicates that this is a mix of need and demand, for both rental and purchase, and has been given little weight by the Minister in reviewing the policy.

The Minister's policy ignores both the specific housing needs of this group and the wider benefits I have outlined. In discussion with him, he regards the housing needs for  sheltered  housing  and  housing  for  the  over-60s  as  part  of  the  provision  for affordable housing. If people wish to downsize and have the means to do so, the Minister considers those people can find demand (Category B) housing from within the existing Built-up Area, where he argues there is plenty of availability. Whereas this policy means that if over-60s people fulfil the financial criteria for affordable homes of the housing gateway, that of not having more than median incomes, and don't have capital, then they will be eligible for housing in a parish-led development of sheltered housing or lifelong dwellings outside the Built-up Area.

This I believe to be a socially divisive policy, even if the availability of sheltered housing  in  the  Built-up  Area  is  as  the  Minister  believes  it  to be. The  economic pressures and scarcity of development land in the Built-up zones, has led to garden- grabbing  developments  and  expensive  luxury  flats.  The  Minister's  own  report recognizes  that  the  capacity  of  the  Built-up  Areas  to  deliver  windfall  "demand" (Category B) housing is likely to diminish as such sites become more scarce. To achieve private developments of lifelong dwellings in the Built-up zone will require development control policies to encourage over-55s housing scheme developments such  as  Tabor  Park  in   St. Brelade  and  Avalon  in   St. Clement .  Such  desirable developments are unlikely to happen in the Built-up Area otherwise.

This  issue  was  discussed  at  the  Planning  Inquiry,  the  relevant  section  of  the Inspectors'  report  is  attached  at  Appendix 3.  The  Inspectors'  report  highlights concerns over lack of recognition of the parish role in housing for the elderly, but the Inspectors have accepted a messy and unsatisfactory compromise, i.e. a promise from the  Minister  for  Housing  that  he  would  not  apply  the  housing  gateway  criteria inflexibly in the case of parish sheltered housing and over-55s housing.

In my amendment, without completely rewriting the Minister's policy review, I have sought to widen out the range of housing falling within the scope of the Minister's Policy H7. I propose this should include all sheltered housing, lifelong dwellings for over-60s  rather  than  over-55s,  and  housing  to  meet  special  requirements.  My amendment seeks to separate this type of housing from the affordable homes policies H1 and H5, thus sidestepping the social division which would otherwise arise.

My amendment provides the rationale required by the Planning Law, recognizes the wider benefits of such special housing provision throughout the Island, and the vital role of parish-led developments through the mechanism of Local Development Plans and Village Plans. My amendment opens up the possibility of rezoning proposals for parish-led  developments  where  a  specific  need  for  sheltered  housing  can  be demonstrated. My proposed change to Policy H7 is within the Plan's general spatial policy  for  development.  My  proposed  new  Proposal H4  charges  the  Minister  for

Planning and Environment to put this policy into effect. It will enable those parishes, which so far have not progressed sheltered or lifelong dwellings for the over-60s and who wish to do so within the plan period, to do so, subject to a demonstrable need.

Financial and manpower implications

The Planning Department plans to resource this project as far as possible from within its existing resources in partnership with key stakeholders, the parish authorities. This will require the development of a prioritised programme of work over the remainder of the Plan period. If it becomes necessary to speed up that work, additional consultancy support will be required, for which new resources may become available from other sources, ring-fenced as part of the particular parish housing project.

Extract from Island Plan Review 2011 Core Documents "Jersey's Housing Assessment 2008–2012

Report on the 2007 Housing Needs Survey (Pages 29–32)

Older Persons' Housing

With Jersey's ageing population, provision for older persons' housing is becoming increasingly important; therefore a separate analysis for older persons' housing has been undertaken. "Older persons' housing" refers to housing designed for people aged 55 or over to live in independently, whilst also being able to receive assistance from agencies such as Family Nursing and Home Care. Such homes could be houses, bungalows or flats. The following analysis does not include Nursing/residential care; the five year demand for this type of accommodation is some 75 1-bedroom units.

The total potential supply for older persons' accommodation over the next five years is 125 units, almost evenly split between 1-bedroom and 2-bedroom dwellings (60 and 65 units,  respectively).  The  majority  of  the  supply  (90 units)  arises  from  units becoming available due to occupants dying or moving into extended care facilities, (death and care').

Over the next five years there is a potential total demand for 305 older persons' housing  units.  Two-thirds  of  this  demand  is  for  1-bedroom  dwelling  units.  The majority (130 units) of the demand is from people wishing to purchase older persons' accommodation followed by demand for States' rental accommodation (100 units). Just over half of the demand (55%) is short-term need, i.e. people wanting to move within the next two years.

The  differences  between  supply  and  demand,  indicating  potential  surpluses  and shortfalls within each tenure and size category, are shown below. Overall, there is a shortfall  of  180 dwelling  units  over  the  next  five-year  period.  Two-thirds  of  the shortfall (120 units) is for 1-bedroom units and a third (60 units) for 2-bedroom units.

Table 22: Five-year requirement (supply-demand) by tenure and size of dwelling unit.

Of households wishing to buy older persons' housing, around half (53%) are looking for a property priced between £300,000 and £349,000 (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: Price range requirement for households wishing to purchase older persons' housing. (See Original chart via weblink)

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ IRP1%20BT8%20Jersey's%20Housing%20Assessment%202008- 2012%2020140115%20mm.pdf

More than a  quarter  (28%)  of  households  planning  on  moving  to  older  persons' housing in the next five years wish to live in the urban area of Jersey (see definitions), followed by just under a quarter (23%) showing no preference.

About a sixth (18%) would like to live in the west of the Island. Older Persons' Housing – Inclination

To  gauge  the  potential  level  of  interest  in  older  persons'  housing  in  Jersey,  all respondents (whether  planning  to  move  or  not)  were  asked  to answer  a  separate section of the questionnaire relating to older persons' housing. This section asked whether respondents or member(s) of their household would be interested in moving into older persons' housing, if it were available. Responses to such a hypothetical question would tend to be based more on inclination rather than on actual need. However, other questions in the section do provide interesting information relating to what facilities might be required in older persons' housing.

Of the respondents who answered this section, one fifth (21%) expressed a desire to move into older persons' housing, if it were available, within the next ten-year period (Figure 12). One in ten people (9%) said they would be interested in moving to older persons' housing within the next five years.

It must be pointed out that of the respondents expressing an interest in older persons' housing within the next five years, about half (53%) had stated in earlier parts of the survey that they were not planning on moving within the next five years. This, in principle, could be interpreted as suggesting that a large number of people would like older  persons'  housing  but  are  unable  to  move  as  it  is  not  currently  available. However, the most popular reason given for such people not moving is that they are "happy with their current home" (71%). Such responses taken together highlight the likelihood that people answered this question in terms of inclination towards a broad concept rather than in terms of actual need. Fewer than one in six (15%) stated that their reason for not moving was due to no suitable older persons' housing being available.

Figure 12: Percentage of households expressing a desire to move into older persons' housing. Yes, within 5 years, 7% Yes, within the next 6 months, 2% Yes, within 10 years, 13% No, 79% (See Original Chart via weblink)

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ IRP1%20BT8%20Jersey's%20Housing%20Assessment%202008- 2012%2020140115%20mm.pdf

Keeping  in  mind  the  lack  of  a  consistent  reported  basis  of  the  need  for  such accommodation, the grossed up numbers of households with person(s) interested in older persons' housing is shown in Table 23. Of those interested within the next ten

years,  nearly  half  (46%)  were  from  households  currently  in  owner-occupied accommodation  and  a  third  (33%)  currently  in  qualified  private  rental.  Of  the 540 households interested within the next six months, more than half (56%) currently live in private rental accommodation.

Table 23:  Current  tenure  of  households  expressing  an  interest  in  older  persons' housing In the future.

Yes, within Current Tenure  6 months

Owner Occupier  100 States rental  115

Housing trust/

Parish rental  20 Private rental

(qualified)  300 Private rental

(non-qualified)  – Registered lodging

house  – Staff/service  – Private lodging  – All Tenures  540

Yes, within 5 yrs

655 315

110 675 –

– –

– 1,755

Yes, within  Total

10 yrs  Interested

1,840  2,600 480  910

120  250 885  1,860 25  25

50  50

– –

– –

3,405  5,700

Table 23 shows if older persons' housing were available almost 2,300 households would be interested in it over the next five years. With a potential demand of some 300 units (Table 22) recorded from households who responded that they were actually planning  to  move,  the  number  of  additional  households  interested  in  such accommodation  reduces  to  about  2,000.  Although  the  majority  of  these 2,000 households seem to have answered the above question in terms of inclination rather than need, it is possible to derive a measure of who have expressed a latent but real need for such accommodation. Of these 2,000 households some 8% stated they were not currently planning on moving in the next five years due to there being no suitable  older  persons'  housing;  this  corresponds  to  some  160 households.  These 160 households may thus be considered as representing a further latent need for older persons' housing in addition to the shortfall of 180 units presented in Table 22.

Taking the above figures (180 and 160 units), and also factoring in some known reductions in current supply, a total shortfall (representing an upper bound) of up to 400 dwellings for older persons' accommodation becomes apparent.

Households were also asked which facilities they would require for older persons' housing. Respondents were able to select as many facilities as they wished. Having a small  garden  was the  most  popular facility  with seven  in  ten (69%) respondents requiring it. This was followed by around five in ten (56%) people requiring lifts and a further  four  in  ten  (37%)  requiring  a  warden  (Figure 13).  The  Other'  category included: parking/garage, being near a good bus route and having a ground floor flat.

Figure 13:  Facilities  required  by  those  interested  in  moving  into  older  persons' housing in the future. (See Original Chart via weblink)

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ IRP1%20BT8%20Jersey's%20Housing%20Assessment%202008- 2012%2020140115%20mm.pdf

Figure 14 shows the areas (see definitions) of Jersey in which respondents interested in older persons' housing would prefer to live. The most popular choice was the urban area (24%) followed by the west (22%). About a sixth of respondents (18%) showed no preference for a particular area. The least popular areas for older persons' housing were the northern and central parts of Jersey (both 6%).

Figure 14: Preferred area of Jersey for older persons' housing. (See original chart via weblink)

https://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ IRP1%20BT8%20Jersey's%20Housing%20Assessment%202008- 2012%2020140115%20mm.pdf

Of the households interested in older persons' housing, more than half (55%) of the demand would be for single person's dwellings, with the remainder interested in dwellings for two people.

Extracts from Report accompanying the Proposition of the previous Minister for Planning and Environment – P.61/2007 – Rezoning of land for Category A and lifelong dwellings for the over-55s' dated 14th May 2007 and the subsequent Proposition – P.75/2008 – Provision of land for lifelong dwellings (for people over 55) and first-time buyers: amendment to Island Plan (2002)', which rezoned 8 sites and 58.5 vergées of land, including lifelong dwellings for over-55s

The Island-Wide Strategy for the Ageing Society

In 2004, the Island-Wide Strategy for the Ageing Society (ISAS) raised the issue of the Island's increasing elderly population and identified that the number of elderly people in Jersey would begin to steadily increase over the next few decades and made it  clear  that  this  was  not  a  temporary  bulge,  but  rather  a  long-term  shift  in  the composition of the Island's population.

The ISAS strategy was commissioned by the Social Policy Strategy Group, which comprised the Presidents and Chief Officers of the Employment and Social Security Committee and the Health and Social Services Committee. The strategy was produced under  the  direction  of  the  Health  Department  with  input  from  a  wide-ranging interdepartmental working group and consultancy advice from Professor Malcolm Johnson , Director at the International Institute on Health and Ageing.

The 2001 census found that 17% of the population (14,507 persons) were above working age (women/men aged 60/65 and over) and the ISAS predictions expect this number to rise to 19% by 2011 and to around 30% by 2031.

ISAS recommended that the Island should start to plan now and identified a number of key principles which the States should aim to achieve and those which refer to the quality of people's living environment are outlined below –

• Improve the quality of people's living space and their local environment as these are key issues if health inequalities are to be reduced;
• Establish  and  recognise  the  requirement  for  the  provision  of  a  sufficient amount of housing to accommodate an increasing and changing population in Jersey;
• Use  existing  stock  of  living  accommodation  occupied  by  members  of  an ageing society wisely and appropriately to the requirements of residents;
• Enable people to feel safe and secure, and have good access to a high quality visual environment as well as open space and other amenities and services.

Jersey's Housing Requirements 2005 – 2009 – Report on the 2004 Housing Needs Survey (Statistics Unit)

The Housing Needs Survey identified the Island's potential housing requirements for the 5-year period, 2005 – 2009.

The survey looked at the potential release of owner-occupied family homes through downsizing and found that 205 households living in two- to five-bedroom houses

anticipate moving into one- or two-bedroom sheltered units. An estimated 125 three- bedroom  houses  would  be  freed-up'  by  this  move.  Accordingly,  the  release  of 125 family homes back into the market place will save at least 25 vergées of land (using a density of 5 homes per vergée).

2006 Planning for Homes (Planning Department)

Planning  for  Homes,  published  in  November  2006,  reported  the  outcome  of  the Housing Needs Survey. It noted that the Island's ageing population was likely to result in a significant increase in demand for retirement accommodation from 2010 onwards and recommended that it was important to plan now for the demand for retirement homes, including the securing of sites, within the 5-year period to the end of 2009. This is particularly critical, as there is a typical lead-in time of about 3 years before homes can be completed even on the most straightforward of sites. Whilst recognizing the need to release additional land specifically to meet the requirements for retirement or lifelong homes, the report also identified the need to release land for first-time buyers, where it could be shown to be in the best interests of the community.

2006 Jersey Annual Social Survey (Statistics Unit)

The survey conducted by the Statistics Unit looked at Islanders' aspirations in respect of  retirement  accommodation  and  one  of  the  key  findings  showed  that  7  out  of 10 people  (69%)  are  worried  to  some  extent  about  their  standard  of  living  in retirement.

The survey included both home-owners and people in social rented accommodation and the results show –

• 39%  of  the  population  don't  know  where  they  would  like  to  live  upon commencing retirement.
• 33%  believes  they  will  stay  in  their  current  neighbourhood  with  suitable modifications to their existing home if required.
• 18% of the population thinks they will leave the Island when they retire.
• 10% of Islanders (currently aged 55 and over) who own and occupy family accommodation, hope to downsize to purpose-built retirement accommodation either in their own community or elsewhere in the Island.
• Less than 1% think they will live with relatives.

Parish need

The need expressed by Connétable s for retirement housing signals that the above indicators are  accurate  and  indeed  becoming  reality.  Many  parishes  already  have successful schemes, such as St. Ouen , St. Peter , St. Lawrence , St. Martin , Grouville and   Trinity ;  however,  the  Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  has  received requests from nearly every Connétable to consider rezoning land for retirement homes

The Minister recognises that the Parishes have a key part to play in helping to deliver, or supporting the development of, homes which will enable elderly people to remain in, or be able to return to, their Parish of origin if they wish. The Minister for Housing has many country folk living in town accommodation, and believes that they should have the opportunity to retire to the country parish where they were brought up and have strong ties.

Sustainable communities

The 2005 Housing Needs Survey identified the potential for 125 family homes to be released if elderly homeowners were provided the opportunity to downsize. Homes designed to Lifetime Home' standards will provide the opportunity for elderly people to  live  independently  for  as  long  as  possible  and  be  in  an  appropriate  and  safe environment. It will also afford the opportunity for elderly people to remain in their local community or perhaps return to their Parish of origin.

The potential for the release of family homes back into the local community will in turn will help sustain the Parish schools, shops, churches, community facilities and the honorary  way  of  life.  Most  importantly  however  it  will  ensure  the  delivery  of affordable lifelong social rented homes, through the use of planning obligations.

Lifelong dwellings

Lifelong dwellings are defined as homes designed to accommodate both fit' and less able' older people, in a socially supportive and stimulating environment which enables them to live independently. They will also be able to receive support from Family Nursing and Home Care and other agencies when required, which will assist their continued independence, allowing them to live as long as possible in their own home.

Independent living

The decision to provide land for retirement homes is an important step forward in addressing the issue of an ageing community. It is important to state from the outset that lifelong dwellings' are not sheltered homes, but are homes designed to make it possible for people to live independently for as long as possible. This means that the dwellings must be in appropriate locations with access to services and amenities, and must be designed to lifetime homes standards.

Access to services and amenities

The location of homes relative to services and amenities is particularly important in the context of an ageing society. The Island Plan spatial strategy seeks to promote a sustainable pattern of development where new homes are developed with pedestrian access to local amenities and facilities. In the assessment of each of the sites the proximity to local amenities is important. In addition the topography of the land is also an important factor to ensure that the site is fairly flat and avoids the need for steps or steep slopes.

Lifetime homes standards

It is vital that all new homes are well designed, not just aesthetically, but also in terms of the internal and external ergonomics, and all schemes will be required to conform to lifetime homes standards'. These standards were formulated by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, following their concern about the design quality of British housing and in particular how inaccessible and inconvenient many houses were for large segments of the population – from those with young children through to frail older people and those with temporary or permanent disabilities. The standards broadly encompass the following –

• Approach to the home to be wide enough for a wheelchair.
• Entrance thresholds to be level.
• Circulation areas within the home to be wide enough to allow wheelchair users to manoeuvre into and around all rooms.
• Bathrooms and WCs should be capable of taking adaptations, be wheelchair accessible and provide a route for a hoist from the main bedroom.
• Occupants should be able to enjoy views through the windows whilst seated and wheelchair users should be able to open at least one window in each room.
• Switches, socket outlets and other equipment should be easily reachable by wheelchair users.

Key criteria for lifelong dwellings (2008) (extract)

2. The minimum net internal floor space of a one-bed lifelong social rented dwelling isto be 650 square feet.
3. The maximum net internal floor space of a two-bed lifelong dwelling for the over-55s isto be 850 square feet, to ensure that these homes are attractively priced to encourage downsizing to occur.
4. All units are to be designed to lifetime home standards', and 20% of the social rented dwellings are to be fully disabled compliant.
5. All social rented dwellings are to have wheelchair accessible shower wet' rooms.
6. Bedrooms  should  be  located  with  easy  access  to the  bathroom  and  with adequate  wheelchair  circulation  around  the  bed.  Provision  should  also  be made in the ceiling to enable a hoist to be fitted which can connect the bedroom with the bathroom.

8. The homes are to be designed to reduce the dwelling CO2 emission rate and comply with BREEAM – ECOHOMES very good' or excellent' will be required – at the Minister's discretion.
9. The external  private  and  public  amenity  areas  are  to be  designed  to be accessible for the elderly and disabled, and private amenity areas should be designed to minimise maintenance.
10. Central refuse storage areas should be designed with provision for future waste separation and recycling.
11. Permanent  Broadband  Internet  access,  telecommunication  and  digital  TV service shall be provided to each home.
12. A minimum of 10% of the site area should be made available for communal open space within the development.
13. On-site  parking  provision  should  meet  the  current  requirements  of  the Minister for Planning and Environment.

14. Schemes must be designed to minimise the visual impact of car parking.
15. Sustainable forms of transport that reduce reliance on the private car will be encouraged where practicable.
16. The design of the units should comply with the design principles issued by the Minister  for  Planning  and  Environment  and  other  relevant  Island  Plan policies.
17. The homes will be single-storey bungalows and anything other must have appropriately designed lift access. Any loss of privacy or overbearing impact to neighbouring property must be minimal.
18. Single-storey units should include front and rear patio gardens.
19. In larger schemes, an area of land should be set aside for allotment gardens for use by the residents.
20. All schemes for retirement accommodation shall incorporate a community room, which will provide a point of contact for residents and a store for nursing and home care purposes. The amenities and facilities provided on the sites will be required to be inclusive and available to all residents.
21. Any off-site infrastructure which is deemed by the Minister to be necessary in relation to the proposed development will be a planning obligation on the development.
22. In developer-led schemes, the Parishes shall have initial nomination rights over all the first-time buyer and lifelong dwellings for the over-55s. All social rented dwellings shall be allocated jointly by the Housing Department and the respective parish.
23. The minimum occupancy age for an open market retirement home will be 55, which isto be in perpetuity.

Extract from the Jersey Island Plan 2011 Interim Review Inspectors' Report: Chapter 4: Housing – Volume 1 – Main Report and Appendices

dated 18 February 2014

Chris Shepley CBE BA DipTP MRTPI – Inspector

Alan Langton DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCIHT – Assistant Inspector

Examination in Public held on 14 to 23 January 2014

Housing for the over-55s

67. The provision of housing for the over-55s in Jersey has two prongs. The first is that in order to enable people to stay in their own homes for as long as possible, since 2007 new homes in Jersey have been required to meet local "lifetime homes" standards under the Building Bye Laws. The second isto provide homes especially for this group, and Jersey has a good record of doing this, through the States and the Parishes and the private sector. Policy H7 (not the subject of proposed alterations) is the key here.
68. The Minister usefully discussed this issue on page 5 of his closing statement (EPD2/21) and we don't repeat that analysis; but he concluded that "evidence for  the  current  supply  of  homes  for  the  over-55s  is good  .  the Minister remains to be convinced of the need to specifically zone further land for  this  purpose  ..".  There  are  therefore  no  proposals  specifically  to provide for the over-55s in the proposed revisions. Those who are over 55 and come through the Housing Gateway will be eligible in the normal way but others will be reliant on Category B housing. Deputy Young thought this was "socially divisive". But, though there is a natural and widely held view that there is a need to respond to the challenges of an ageing society, in the context of  Jersey's  overall  affordability  problem,  we  think  this  is a  reasonable approach at the present time given the statistical evidence before us.

Role of the Parishes

69. This becomes a problem in particular in relation to the role of the Parishes, which in this EiP assumed considerable importance and complexity. Some of the Parishes have in the past provided housing for the elderly. We saw some of this, and it was of a very high quality. Some Parishes wish to continue to make such provision, with the twin aims of providing for those over 55 who have Parish links, and also freeing up larger houses for families as a result of "downsizing". Until now, this provision has had support from the centre. However the policy in the Plan that sites for affordable housing should be developed on the 80/20 tenure split discussed above has meant a significant change, since as we indicated building specifically for the over-55s is no longer part of the approach. They are eligible only if they come through the Gateway. The Minister believes that this better meets Island-wide needs and priorities, and that accommodation for the elderly does not constitute the most severe problem since there is already a good supply. This change has led to considerable angst at Parish level, reflected in the debates over the H5 sites which  we  consider  later.  And  reflected,  too,  in other  Parishes  such  as

St. Brelade which also have hopes in the future of providing more homes specifically for the elderly.

70. We note a point which was made by Mr. Dun that not all elderly persons have in fact  got  a  close  link  with  a  particular  Parish  in  these  days  of  greater mobility.
71. There are issues here about the relationship between the Parishes and the States on which we do not wish to comment. We do understand the Parishes' concern about this  change,  which  in  some  cases  occurred (as  they  see it without adequate warning) whilst they were in the process of identifying sites for housing for the elderly (or for other local needs). On the other hand, as we have  indicated,  the  80/20  policy  is well  founded,  and  the  advent  of  the Housing Gateway now means that housing is much more likely to go to those in greatest need.
72. This was debated at some length and at various points in the EiP. Light appeared at the end of the tunnel as a result of Deputy Green's commitment to operate the Housing Gateway in a flexible way. He would ensure that, in relation to H5 sites and other Parish-developed sites in the future, preference would be given to those with links to the Parish.
73. It seems to us that such an approach offers the best way forward and that by discussion and agreement between the States and the Parishes it ought to be possible to give a degree of priority to the elderly of the Parish, providing they are in need (as defined through the Gateway); and to meet the strategic and obviously laudable aims of the Minister(s) to ensure that housing goes to those in greatest need. These will essentially be operational matters. So far as the Plan is concerned, as we have already said, we think the basis of the tenure split is well argued and we do not suggest any change.

Extract from Deputy Young's submission to the Island Plan Review (23rd September 2013) to Sheltered Housing

The plan revision (Policy H1 and Policy H5) and paras 6.82–6.84 of the amendment is also socially divisive in respect of sheltered housing. This will do nothing for the creation of sustainable communities throughout the parishes. Sheltered housing is required  in  the  right  locations  convenient  to  parish  centres  irrespective  of  the occupant's  financial  status.  The  new  policy  proposed  is  not  consistent  with  our strategy we have adopted to keep people in advanced years in their own homes as long as possible. This needs to be within the communities in which they were brought up and where their personal support systems lie. I am advised by planning officers that affordable homes in the rural settlements do not preclude sheltered housing but such Cat A sheltered housing developments will now be exclusively for those people who qualify under the new Housing gateway, i.e. those of insufficient financial means. This Policy  means that access to Sheltered Housing in the parishes will no longer be generally open to parish residents.

Under this amendment the land proposed to be zoned in the parishes for Cat A can be used for sheltered housing but only to those people in the housing gateway. Those parish residents who need sheltered housing but fall outside the new rules will need to look to Cat B developments whether they are in the existing built up areas, in town and elsewhere, entirely at the whims of the market. Current Cat B policies do not favour the development of sheltered housing nor over-55 housing. I cannot think of a more socially divisive policy and I do not support it. I submit we should readopt the very successful 2002/2008 Island Plan spatial policies in respect of the location of sheltered housing in the parish communities, as is currently being applied in those sites under development.

The need for sheltered housing should be based on personal criteria, taking account of the person's individual physical and social support needs which are required to be met for them to remain in their home. This policy should apply equally to all parishes.

In St. Brelade a housing development is planned at para 6.56, Belle Vue Phase 2, which I would like to see developed for sheltered housing for persons of parish connections including some units for sale, releasing their homes also in the parish for first-time buyer homes. Such a scheme could have financial conditions imposed to ensure this objective is met. There are other sites in the parish which are potentially suitable for sheltered housing which should be considered in our parish plan.