Fields 181, 182 and 183, St. Peter - restriction on development (P.133-2004) – coms

STATES OF JERSEY

r

FIELDS 181, 182 AND 183, ST. PETER: RESTRICTION ON DEVELOPMENT (P.133/2004) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 20th July 2004

by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

1. I n t roduction

1. T h isreportisinresponsetoReport and Proposition P.133/2004 lodged au Greffe' on 6th July 2004 by the Deputy of St. Peter.
2. In respondingto the proposition,theEnvironment and Public ServicesCommittee wish topointout that an applicationwassubmittedon 23rd December2003whichhasyettobedetermined. The Committee have indicated that they are minded to support a scheme for 72 homes subject to the satisfactory resolution of a PlanningAgreementas defined under Article 8Aof the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964. TheCommitteehas responsibility underthe Island Planning Law to determinetheapplication.
3. T h e proposition requests the States to refer to their Act dated 10th July 2002 inwhich they agreed to rezone Fields 181, 182 and 183, St. Peter for Category A Housing and to request theEnvironmentand Public ServicesCommittee to limit developmenton the siteto a maximumof54three-bedroomtwo- storey unitsor68two-bedroomtwo-storeyunitsorany equivalent combinationofthreeandtwo-bedroom units.

2. T h  e Island Plan

2.1 T h e States are reminded that in July 2002 they approved the Island Plan which brought forward a raft of new policies and proposals. Part of the Plan addressed the need to provide new housing for an identified and enduring need for First-Time Buyer and Social Rented Housing. This site, Field  181, 182 and 183, St.  Peter, was one of those sites identified to meet that clearly identified need. This need to provide new housing for those who cannot compete on the open market is as strong today as it was in 2002. The new "Planning for Homes" which is currently in draft form recognises the changes that have taken place since 2002 but confirms that requirement to provide housing for First-Time Buyers and within the social rented sector  has not  diminished. This is the context within  which this  Report and Proposition should be considered.

3. B a c kground

1. In June 2001 the Draft Consultation Plan,whichwastakenaroundevery Parish, identified this siteas capable ofaccommodating55three-bedroomhomes or 65two-bedroomhomes.Housingwasonlyone issue within a numberof others discussed that evening. It was following ananalysisof this andtheother Parish meetings that the Planning and EnvironmentCommitteebrought the new Island Plan tothe States in July 2002. The estimated yield for the 3  fields wasgivenas68 homes.At this stagenosketch plans had been prepared for the siteand the estimatedyieldwas done as a reflection of the size of the site on an anticipated yield per acre. Specifically the new IslandPlanwentontopoint out that –

" th e   figures are only an indication of yield per site because the mix of size and type of homes will be determined through the development brief process for each site including the need for sheltered homes".

2. T h e mention of the DevelopmentBriefisimportantfor it was only after the DevelopmentBriefhad been prepared that thefirst drawings for the site were completed.

4. S i te yield

1. T h e preparation of the DevelopmentBrief in 2003 after the approval by the Statesof the Island Plan gave rise to the first drawings being prepared.
2. It i s at this point that it is usefulto reflect on two matters raised by Deputy Egre.The first is the difference in the site yields. This is relatively straightforward.The figure of54comes from the Deputy himself and I can find no indication of this figure ever havingbeing raised by the Committee in theDraft Plan or at the

meeting. The figures of 55 and 65 come from the Draft Consultation Island Plan and the figure of 68 was used in

the  approved  Island  Plan.  All  of  these  figures  were  estimates  only  using  the  size  of  the  site  as  a determinant of yield. No drawings had been prepared at this stage.

3. T h e first drawings prepared for the scheme were done as part of the preparation of theDevelopment Brief. The architects put forward a schemefor87 homes. This schemewasshownat a public meetingat the Parish Hall in September 2003 and drew 50 letters in response. It was from these drawings for 87  homes, and taking into account the concerns and issues raised bythosewho had commentedon the project, that the EnvironmentandPublicServicesCommitteebegan a detailed analysisand evaluation of the proposalswhich resulted in a reduction in thenumberof homes from 87 to the current figureof72. This process whereby the aspirationsof the developer are evaluated against the restraints and parameters of the Committee is a fundamental part of the work of theCommittee.Thereduction in thenumbers quoted by the Deputy is a reflection oftheextenttowhich the Committee and its Officersconsidered the scheme needed to beamendedand reduced in scale. In seeking a reduction in the number of homeson this site the Committeeand its Officerstook into account the representations receivedinresponse to the plans, the context of the site, the termsof the DevelopmentBriefandtherecommendationsandpolicies within the Island Plan.
4. T h e Deputy has difficulty inunderstandingwhy the figures have changed. The reason is very simple; it is all part of the normal iterative process that theCommittee and its Officers adopt in seeking amendments to a scheme in order that it represents a project that has satisfied all requirements and is capableofbeing granted approval.
   5. S i te size

5.1 T h e site has always been intended to include Fields 181, 182 and 183. The site was however measured inaccurately  in  its  early  stages.  The  site  has  been  accurately  measured  at  5.1  acres.  Clearly  the underestimation of the site size gave rise to a low anticipated yield in the early stages.

6. S e r vices

1. S c hool

T h e D  eputy makes mention of issues relating to schooling, traffic congestion and the disposal of surface

water. The Education Department have been involved at every stage of the development. They are firmly of the view that the school can accommodate the number of children generated by the new development.

2. R o ads

T h e Road Engineers of Public Services have carried out tests and traffic counts on the junction in the

Village as a direct consequence of the proposed development. They are satisfied that capacity exists at the junction in the Village to accommodate the vehicles generated. It is conceded that there is congestion at Beaumont. The States took the decision in 2002 to approve the rezoning of land for housing in the West of the Island with the situation at Beaumont in mind. The importance of providing new homes for residents was regarded as essential however and the Committee were also of the view that through having new housing attached to an existing settlement with services such as schools, shops, church and post office would reduce the need for private car use.

3. W a ter

T h e d isposal of surface water for the site will be addressed by a system of soakaways on site. The ground

tests have already been completed and the results indicate that the system of disposal chosen will comply with the requirements of the Building Bye-Laws. They have been verified by the Building Surveyors. These tests have been carried out at this early stage to ensure there is no uncertainty that the method proposed for the disposal of surface water is adequate. The Committee are entirely satisfied that all the aspects of school, roads and drainage have been examined thoroughly.

4. G r oundwater

C o n c ern has been expressed that the use of soakaways on site to dispose of surface water will exacerbate

problems associated with surface water disposal on Jubilee Hill. Investigations carried out by Public Services have revealed no substantial problems associated with surface water on Jubilee Hill and it is considered that the possibility of delivering some water to the table slightly quicker than has been the case in the past will make no material difference to the position that exists at present. Notwithstanding that however, the Public Services Department has identified and will carry out within the next 2  months, work on the existing water drainage systems currently in place on Jubilee Hill to enhance their effectiveness.

5. T h e Parish maintain the responseshave been unsatisfactory. They have not provided any substantive reasons why the results of significant workandanalysis are unacceptable other than they do not accord with theirown observations. The Committee and its Officershavemadeevery effort to keep the Parish informed in relation to the investigations and the results of those investigations.

7. C  o nclusions

1. T h e Committee have always carefully considered the comments received. 50, not 85, commentswere received as a result of the public meetingatthe Parish Hall in September2003 when the Development Brief and thefirstplans were presented. Theseplanswerefor87 homes.Thescheme has been reduced to 72  homes as a result of careful analysisand in responseto the representations. Claims that no heed has been takenofthecommentsmadeignores the facts.
2. T h e need for the Island to provide homes for its residents falls on all the Parishes. Each Parishmust play its role andsomeParishes might have to shoulder a greater burden than others given that they can already provide servicesfor new residents that satisfy broad principles of sustainability. To build only 54three- bedroom or68two-bedroomhomes on this site would not represent the best useof this land for housing and it would not reflectour housing requirements. In addition it cannotbe justified on the groundsof insufficient investigation or service provisionas the Parish suggests.
3. T  he  Deputy  suggests that  the conditions  do not reflect the  concerns expressed. The  Deputy misunderstands how conditions are used.They are thefinal part of the regimeof control implementedby the Committee. They need to beread in conjunction with all changesmade to the plans from the time the schemewas first advanced.Toexamine them in isolation from the plan changes is to underestimate the extent to whichtheCommittee has exercised its control over the development, and ignores the extentto whichtheschemehaschanged from the first time the drawingswereprepared and submitted.