Planning applications - requirement to publicize (P.175-2004) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

PLANNING APPLICATIONS: REQUIREMENT TO PUBLICIZE (P.175/2004) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 23rd November 2004 by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

1. O v erview – At the outset of this report the EnvironmentandPublicServices Committee wishestomake it clear that it totally rejects the unsubstantiated suggestions in Senator LeClaire's report that it is unduly influenced by applicants or that it does not give adequate consideration to the impactofdevelopmenton membersof the public. Quite the reverse is true andMemberswillbeaware that manyproposals are amendedto reflect the boththeindividual and theCommittee'sconcerns.

R e g r ettably, the current Island Planning Law makes no requirement of the Environment and Public

Services Committee to publicize planning applications – a situation which is addressed in the new legislation waiting to be brought into force. However, the Committee has, over the years, developed a system which helps to involve the public in the planning process. The Committee is also open to initiatives to expand public participation in the planning process, demonstrated by the fact that it now publicizes applications on the Planning and Environment Department Website. The website offers a new service which allows members of the public to scan through current and previous lists of published applications, with the facility, in particular, to search for applications in terms of distance (radius) from a specified postcode.

2. C u rrent Procedure – At present, publication lists are produced twice weekly and are sent to States Members,themedia,the Parish Hall s and most StatesDepartments.These contain a list ofnew planning applications which Planning and Building Services consider should be advertised. Non-contentious applications (known as smallworks) are notincludedon the list, although the Departmentmay publicize these later if it transpires that there isan issue for neighbours.
3. T h e JEPkindly publishes these lists as editorial matter (the Committee is not charged for this service)on an informal arrangement on a twice weekly basis. Members of the public are asked to make any representation on an application within 7 days. Letters whicharereceived are acknowledgedand then copied to the applicant for information.The author is then kept informed of the decision by letter.
4. S e nator Le Claire's Proposition – The Proposition is in 2 parts; first, that the period of time for representations is extended from 7 to28 days and second, that a copyofeach planning application is sent to the relevant Parish Hall andmade available for public inspection for that period.These 2 points are taken separately below.
5. E x tending the 7-day period – The Environment and PublicServices Committee already receives many letters ofobjection (and support) inrelationto planning applications outside the 7-day period. In fact, the Committee will consider any letter receivedon an application right uptothepoint that the decisionis taken. In practical terms, therefore, the Committee already exceeds therequirementsof the Proposition – the current effective period formakingrepresentationsis 21 days,and the Committee is willing tocommit to this period. However,inordertomaintain its commitmentson service delivery,theCommitteemustbe mindful of the need for prompt planning decisions and ensure that the planning process is not unnecessarily delayed.
6. H av ingreviewed its data overthe last 12 months, the Committee notes that 40% of planning applications had been determined by the end of the fourth week (i.e. 28-day period). Acceptance of Senator Le Claire's Proposition would delaythe decision on these applications until the expiryof that period. This would not be regarded as efficient governanceasmostofthese are the non-contentious applications which are not currently advertised. TheCommittee is mindful that thesearefee-payingcustomerswho have a right to a quality service. The Committee will, therefore, opposetheSenator's Proposition on the grounds that the28-dayperiodis too long and that it should only apply to those applications which are currently publicized (i.e. small works applications would remainunpublicized unless contentious).
7. I n a ddition, the Senator's Proposition would result in significantfinancialimplications for the Committee. The goodwill currently offered by the JEPtoprint the lists freeofcharge is unlikely to be extendedto reprinting these lists everyweekforthe suggested 28-day period. The Committee would be obliged to pay for this service and has no funds for this exercise.

8. P l a nning Applications available at the Parish Hall – The Committee has no objection to the principle of sending a copy of all publicized planning applications to the relevant Parish Hall . Clearly, there will be logistical  implications for the  Parishes themselves – they  will  need  to have an area  to  store the applications and mustalsobe able to make them available for viewingby visiting membersof the public. The Committee is keen to support any initiative which enables public participation in the planning process butwouldnot wish this to be imposed without the agreement of theComitédes Connétable s.The Committee will consult with the Connétable s at their next meeting.
9. F in ancial  and  manpower  implications – The  increase  in  the period  available  for the  submission of representations on planning applications from 7 to 28 days and the repeated publication of applications in the JEP would have significantfinancialormanpower implications fortheCommittee.The decision to send a copy ofeach publicized planning application to the relevant Parish Hall would have a minor effect in terms of the time taken to amalgamate the documentsandto post them, butitis anticipated that this can be absorbed within existing resources.