Fields 203, 204 (part) and 253, Rue de Jambart, St. Clement - restriction of development (P.152-2003) - comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

FIELDS 203, 204 (PART) AND 252, RUE DE JAMBART, ST.  CLEMENT: RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT (P.152/2003) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 23rd December 2003 by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

1 In t r oduction

1. T h isreport is in response to ReportandProposition,P.152/2003 - Fields 203,204 (part) and 252, Ruede Jambart, St. Clement : RestrictionofDevelopment,lodgedau Greffe on 4th November 2003 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement.
2. I n responding to the proposition,theEnvironment and PublicServicesCommittee is mindful that a planning application wassubmittedon 24th September 2003 and is currently being held in abeyance pending the outcomeof this debate. TheEnvironmentand Public ServicesCommitteearecharged with determining the application under the Island Planning (Jersey) Law1965 and in so doingwillhaveregard to the decisionof the States arising from P.152/2003.However, the Committeewouldremindmembers that it has the responsibility undertheIsland Planning Law to determine the application.
3. T h e proposition requests the States to refer to their Act dated 10th July 2002 inwhich they agreed to rezone Fields 203,204 (part) and252,Rue de Jambart, St. Clement, forCategory A Housing and to request the Environment and PublicServices Committee –

• t o l im it development on the said site to a maximum of 45 x 3-bedroom homes (or their equivalent) and ensure adequate resident on-site parking; and

• t o e nsure that adequate extra parking is provided on the site, or nearby, to cater for visitors to St. Clement Parish Church and the Caldwell Hall .

2 Is l a nd Plan Debate

2.1 T h e States are reminded of the Island Plan debate and the representation made then by Deputy Gerard Baudains, in his amendment P.69/2002, which requested the States to exclude 3 sites from being rezoned in St. Clement, including this site.

2.3 T h e amendment to exclude the sites was defeated by a majority vote and the site zoned for Category A dwellings, with an indicative yield of 75 x 3-bedroom homes.

3 D e n sity

1. In July 2001 the ConsultationDraftofthe Island Planwaspublished for public consultation. Howeveran error appeared in thedocumentwhich stated that the area was only 3.8acres and thus capable ofbeing developed for only 45 x 3-bedroom dwellings. The site areahadbeen miscalculated and is 5.3 acres in extent. Following the public consultation, this errorwas identified theareaand the adjusted yield of the site for75 x 3-bedroomdwellings were correctly referred to in the final draft of the plan and subsequently approved.
2. T h e density for the proposeddevelopment reflects the requirement of the Island Plan which calls for an average density of70habitablerooms per acre (14 dwellings peracre)be achieved onthezoned sites. This density reflects the sustainable policies of the Island Planwhichacknowledge the finite nature of the Island's land resourcesandthe requirement touse land as efficiently aspossible.However, it isalso a requirement that the designofthese new developments ensure that the amenities of existing residents and the residents of the development itself are notundulycompromised and this can beachievedthrough the application ofsounddesign principles. The density is therefore reasonable for this type of development and the Committee is confident that this yield can beaccommodated satisfactorily on this site.
3. T h e density proposed in Deputy Baudains proposition would not fulfil the sustainable requirementsof the Island Plan and would necessitate further encroachment into the countryside asmore land would need to be released tosatisfy the resulting shortfall ofhomes.

4 R u r al setting

1. T h e rezoningof agricultural land for housing is a decisionwhichhasnever been taken lightly. Itis a fact that development by its very nature, changes the character ofan area and the States were clearly awareof this whenthe land was rezoned during the Island Plan debate.
2. T h e Agriculture and FisheriesCommittee were also consulted atan early stage inthe site investigation process and confirmed that the loss of this land to agriculture would be negligible and were notopposed to the release ofthe land for residential purposes.

5 T r a ffic

1. T h e approved Island Plan recognised that access to this site via RuedeJambart would notbe acceptable given the poor visibility at the black spot' junction with the St. Clement Inner Road (opposite St. Clement 'sChurch). It identified that thenewdevelopmentcould either beaccessedofftheinner road or provide the opportunity for a new link road from RuedeJambart to the St.ClementInnerRoad. This matter is the subject of discussion with the Parish Roads Committee andthe Public ServicesHighways Section as part ofthe current application.
2. T h e car parking for the Church, if it is a problem, will belookedatas part of the planning application process. The access to thedevelopment is likely to prevent nomore than 6 cars from parking on the Inner Road. This is not sufficient justification to require the developer to provide a new car park,but the lost spaces couldbeaccommodated on the new road proposed as part of the scheme.

6 In f r astructure

1. T h e development is required to achieve a public openspaceareaof 10% ofthe site to provide quiet sitting out areas and children's play areas.
2. T h e capacityoftheprimary and secondaryschoolstoaccommodatechildren from the developmenthas been confirmed by the Education Department both during the feasibility work for the Island Plan and more recently, followingthepublicconsultation exhibition held in June 2003.
3. T h e Public Services Drainage Departmenthasconfirmedthecapacity and stipulated their requirements for both the foul and surface water sewers and detailed engineering designs for the sewers will be required as part of the developmentapplication.

7 D e m and for First time buyer and social rented housing

7.1 T h e proposition questions the need for 75 homes on this site, stating; one has to ask if 75 houses are really necessary, given that supply is already starting to balance demand'. The States are reminded that the Island Plan, which was approved in July 2002, identified a need for 2860 homes to be built over the first 5 years of the plan period. Now, some 18 months on, none of these homes have been started, yet there is clear evidence from the developers that first-time buyer lists are full and from the Housing Committee who require social rented housing.

8 C o n clusions

• t h e reduction from the indicated yield of 75 homes to the 45 would be unsustainable, making inefficient use of the land, and putting pressure on more open land for development;

• th e capacity of the existing infrastructure (schools, drains, traffic in Rue de Jambart) can accommodate the proposed new development;

• a n a p propriate form of development can be achieved to complement the village setting;

• s u f fi cient car parking provision can be made;

• r e d u cing the number of first-time buyer homes and social rental houses would not serve the best interests of the Island.