Committee of Inquiry: construction of 76 houses at Jambart Lane, St.Clement; and public consultation procedures (P.33-2004) - comments (2)

STATES OF JERSEY

r

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY: CONSTRUCTION OF 76  HOUSES AT JAMBART LANE, ST. CLEMENT; AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION PROCEDURES (P.33/2004) –

COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 11th May 2004

by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

Introduction

1. I t i s fortuitous that a projet of this nature is referred to a largely newEnvironment and PublicServices Committee which is able to take a fresh and dispassionate view of the circumstances surrounding the decision of its predecessorCommitteetogrant permission, subject to theprioragreement of a planning obligation, toconstruct76 houseson Fields 203,partof204 and 252,JambartLane, St. Clement.
2. T h e Committee, having reviewedthedecisionandthebackgroundto it, wishestocommenton the projet in the terms set out below.Beforedoingso, it isappropriate to state that to the best knowledgeof the Committee and the Planning Department, Deputy Le Hérissier has only recently requested the opportunity to review the Departmental file and at the time of writing hisreport and proposition had not sought to establish the true factsof this case. Indeed, it is clear from the contents of his projet that hedoes not know them and relies onhearsay.
3. O n 12th February 2004,theformer President, Deputy Dubras,wrote to all States Membersinforming them of the Committee'sdecisionand the reasons for it. Havingreviewed all the circumstances and relevant information about the application,the current Committee can only conclude that the decisionto grant permissionwas entirely reasonable.Indeed,had the Committee refused the applicationor granted permission subject to a condition limiting the numbersto45 dwellings, we believe that the Committee could nothave successfully defended such a decision intheRoyalCourt.
4. F i rs t,itisnecessaryto correct the misleading information andfillthe gaps in the chronologypreparedby Deputy Le Hérissier.
5. T h e ConsultationDraftof the Island Plan waspublishedin July 2001. It is true that itindicated a yield of 45 houses for this site. That wasan error ofmeasurementof the areaof the siteby the Committee's consultants, W.S. Atkins,whichwassubsequentlycorrectedto 75 houses in the Draft Plan published in April 2002 andadoptedby the States, unanimously,in July 2002.It is accepted that themistakecaused confusion atthetime, althougn theboundaries of the siteremained the same throughouttheIsland Plan process.
6. F o l lowing consultations in the Parish of St. Clementin July 2001,whichincluded a day-long exhibition of the Island Plan proposals followed by a "lively" meeting in the Parish Hall , written representations were invited. There was considerable concern that the Parish was expected to accommodate a disproportionately high numberof Category A housing sites compared with otherParishes.Therewere, of course, specific representations about individual sites, including that of Jambart Lane.However,there is no evidence that opposition totheschemewas"unanimous".
7. T h e representations on the consultation Draft Plan werereviewedindependentlybyProfessor Patrick McAuslan, a planning academic and barrister. Hereportedon the representations in September 2001 and concluded that it was inequitable that the Parish of St. Clement(andSt. Lawrence and St. Saviour) had disproportionate number of the proposed Category A sites. He suggested that the Planning and Environment Committee shouldadopt a more equitable geographic distribution of sites andundertake assessments in these Parishes to evaluatethecumulativeimpactof a numberofsitesbeingdeveloped.He did not commentontheyieldof the Jambart Lane site.
8. T h e Committee publishedProfessorMcAuslan's report inNovember2001together with its responseto all his recommendations.Therewassignificant public interest in the findings.
9. A s a result of the Parishassessmentsfor St. Clement the Committee deleted oneof the proposedsitesand downgradedotherswhich had been putforwardasprospective sites for Category A housing subject to further consultation (eventually Policy H3 sites in the adopted Island Plan) to a category which safeguarded them in the eventuality that housing needs would increase beyond those that had been identified (Policy H4).

10. T h e Committeelodged the amended draft Island Plan on 30th April2002(P.69/2002).Theareaandthe yield for the Jambart Lane site werecorrected to 5.3 acres* and 75 homes respectively (*subsequen detailed surveys of the site have corrected the areato 6.3 acres, although the yield hasnot altered).
11. O n 11th June 2002, Deputy G. Baudains ofSt. Clementlodgedanamendmentto the Plan which, i successful, would have had the effect of deleting all three of the sites in St. Clement proposed for Category A housing.Votes for the amendment were taken oneach individual site, and that forJambart Lane wasdefeatedby26 votes to19.The site was subsequently designated for Category A housing on 11th July 2002, in the knowledge that the indicated yield was 75 homes.
12. In accordance with Policy H2of the Island Plan, the Committeeproduced a draft DevelopmentBrief for public consultation in July 2003. Also exhibited at an exhibition were drawings submitted by the prospective developer's architect showing his interpretation of the Brief. As Deputy Le Hérissier states in his projet, the consultation generated many critical comments – addressing both the principle and details of the development. Therewere, however, favourablecommentsmadeas well.
13. O n 13th July 2003 the Environment and Public Services Committee agreed modifications to the Brief arising from matters raised during the consultation process. The Committee decided to invite an application onthebasisof the modified Brief.
14. O n 24th September 2003, the developers submitted an application for 79 homes on the site, in accordance with the Island Plan designation and, broadly, in accordance with the modified Brief. The Parish of St. Clement were consultedon the application, and a delegation attended a meeting of the Planning Sub-Committeeon22nd October. Thecommentsmade were indeed "taken onboard" by the Sub-Committee members and issues arising weretakenupas a result of that delegation.In addition, officers ofthe Planning andPublicServicesDepartments attended a publicmeetinginSt. Clementon7th October 2003about the development, and a further meeting took place between the Planning Department and the Parish Roads Committeeon17thNovember to discuss matters relating to traffic and pedestrian safety.
15. D e puty Baudains lodgedhis proposition on 4th November 2003 because,itis claimed, that neither the "President or the Sub-Committee were able to give the assurances that Deputy Baudains sought". The President orVice-Presidentof the former Committee responded to each of his requests. Hewasadvised, in a hand-delivered letter onthemorningof 4 November, that this was likely to beat the end of the month,and that he and the constable were invited to attend the meeting to make a representation. In the event, Deputy Baudains lodged his proposition anyway,and the application was held inabeyancepending the debate.
16. T h e only certainty about the States debateon 27th January2004is that the States supported Deputy Baudains' proposition by28 votes to 13.Very few of the speakers in that debateaddressed specifically the planning issues of the Jambart Lane development. Additionally, and significantly, there was no substantiation of the claims madeby the Deputy that –

• t h e d ensity at 62 habitable rooms per acre is more appropriate in town – it is slightly less than the norm for estate developments on the edge of the built-up areas. Densities in central St. Helier are substantially greater.

• t h e re are problems with the local drainage systems – the Public servicesengineers have advised that the foul and surface water sewers have the capacity to deal with the expected flows from the development.

• t h e r e is insufficient capacity in the schools – The Education, Sports and Culture Department advised that there is sufficient capacity.

• t h e re is inadequate car-parking for residents – the car parking provision exceeds the Committee's requirements.

• t h e d evelopment will reduce parking for the Parish Church and Caldwell Hall – the four or five spaces lost are to be replaced on the new development.

• t h e re are inadequate facilities for school-children – the development provides over half an acre of playspace and a safe pedestrian route will be created along Jambart Lane (following the Westhill

model).

17. As the application had been held in abeyance for two months pending the debate, the Committee called a special meeting on 11th February 2004 to consider the application. It was not an "emergency" meeting as Deputy Le Hérissierclaims. It is the Committee's duty to deal with applications on a timely basis, and with the States havingby then debated the matter, therewasno cause for further delay. Thefact that the Committee faced a vote of confidence is irrelevant, andany new Committee whichmighthavereplaced it would be bound by the same duties and obligations undertheLaw.
18. T h e Constable and Deputy Baudains were advised bye-mailon the Thursday ofthedecision, out of courtesy. All members would have received the President's letter on 13th February. Deputy Le Hérissier gives several reasonsfortheirsurpriseatthedecision –

( a) th e States decision – which was taken into account by the Committee as a consideration in its

decision.

(b ) th e Sub-Committee's concerns – which had been overcome or resolved. (c ) th e vote of confidence – which is irrelevant.

(d ) th a t the application contravened Island Plan policies – which is patently untrue. It is absurd to

suggest it is so.

T h e  p e r m i s s ion is for exactly what the Island Plan prescribes for the site. Issues of parking, safety

and infrastructure had been addressed to the satisfaction of the Committee. There is no technical evidence that the infrastructure cannot accommodate this development.

( e ) s u ggestions that officers advised the Committee that it would leave the Committee open to

millions of pounds in compensation – this is totally untrue.

T h e   a d vi c e  g  iven to the Committee by the officers was that it would find it extremely difficult to

defend a decision in the Royal Court to refuse or limit the development to 45 homes. If it did lose the case then it is likely that the appellant's costs in bringing the action would have been awarded against the Committee. The Committee did not take legal advice on this specific application, but has received advice on a number of other cases which are relevant.

19. The Committee had all the relevant facts before it when it made its decision.Whywouldthedecision be madeunder duress? Whatgrounds does Deputy LeHérissier have for this possiblybeingthecase?
20. T h ereisnoevidence to suggest that the officers gave inaccurate advice or that the Committee was placed underany obligation by that advice. It is reprehensible of the Deputy to suggest this might beso in the absence ofevidenceandofresearchon his part.Hewasnot at the meeting.Nopressure was placedon the Committee byanyof the parties, norindeed were any ofthe parties themselves pressurised.
21. T h e Committee's"hands(are not) tied", as Deputy Le Hérissier puts it, by the Island Plan, but neither can the Committee ignore its legal responsibilities, the relevance of Island Plan,or that the States adopted it unanimously. TheStates' strategic policies and the Island Plan seektoensure that sufficient land is

available to meet all the Island's housing needs. A large component of that need is for affordable housing

(Category A) – either for first-time buyers or for social rental. The land designated in the Island Plan is intended to be used for this specific purpose, and the Committee has a responsibility to ensure that the supply of land is sufficient to meet the needs. If one site, for example, does not yield its potential as indicated in the Plan, then it is axiomatic that the shortfall will have to be met elsewhere. If all the sites fail to deliver their full potential, then the Committee will have no option but to bring another raft of sites to the States for designation.

22. T h ere is noevidence to suggest that the demand for Category A homes has changed. While there has been much activity in the private sector-driven Category B housing market in the last 2 or 3 years, it will hav done little to satisfy first-timebuyerneeds and nothing for social rental. If there has been a windfall effect on the first-timebuyermarket,it will have been forone and two-bedroom flats – not two,threeandfour- bedroom family homes. Preliminary assessmentson the supplyof Category A housing suggests that the Committee will need to realise the anticipated needsoff the designated sites and bring forward additional sites in line with Policy H3ofthe Island Plan.
23. T h e commentsmadeby the Deputy in his penultimate paragraphareunfortunate.The suggestion that the officers are not "sufficiently detached to give theCommitteeanimpartialrecommendation" is serious and impugns the integrity of individual officers, the Department and the former Committee. They are completely unfounded and noevidenceisprofferedto support them.
24. A s thereis absolutely noevidence to support the assertion, the Deputy should be invited to withdraw it, whether ornotheproceeds with his proposition, particularly ashe has only very recentlysought to obtain information, and did not attend the Committee meeting. The officers have not been "working with" a developer for some time. Certainly there have been pre-application discussions with the developer's architect and further discussions once the applicationwasmade, particularly in regard ofthe points raised by residents and the Parish of St. Clement. There is nothing untoward in this – it is how the Department, and from time to time the Committee, deal with most applications. At all times, officers makeit clear that any advice given does not prejudice the Committee'srightanddutyto make the decision.

Conclusions

25. T h e Committee'sconclusions, having reviewed the case, are as follows –

The States designated the site for Category  A housing, on the basis of an indicative yield of 75  homes, on 11th July 2002.

The Committee approved a Development Brief for the site, following public consultation, on 13th July 2003.

The developer submitted an application for 79  homes on 24th  September 2003, which fell to b

considered against the planning policy guideleines in force at that time. For the most part the application was in accordance with the Brief.

While taking notice of the States decision on 27th January 2004, the case made by Deputy Baudains was not proven.

The legal authority for making decisions on applications rests with the Committee and not the States.

Legal opinion, backed by case-law, is that the Committee should not substitute the States decision for its own.

The former Environment and Public Services Committee made the correct decision on the application.

Had it refused the application, or restricted the yield to 45  homes by a conditional permission, the

applicant had advised that it would have appealed to the Royal Court under Article 21 of the Island Planning (Jersey) Law 1964. Taking all material matters into account and based on legal advice received in other similar situations, the Committee considers that the Royal Court would have decided that the decision was unreasonable and would have granted permission.

Arrangements for consultation on the development of the site were extensive, and included

separate consultation periods on the Consultation Draft of the Island Plan, on the Draft Development Brief and on the Application. The Committee was under no illusions about the feelings of local residents against the development

26. F in ally, the new EnvironmentandPublicServices Committee is confident that a Committee of Inquiry into the Jambart Lane decision (and any "other cases dealt with by Deputy Baudainsin the past") would totally vindicate the actions and advice of officers and the decision of formerCommittee.However, the Committee isunanimousinconsidering that there isno justification for a Committeeof Inquiry. Notonly would it be a unnecessaryuseof public fundsat this time, but the facts and issues are well documentedin this and other reports on the matter.