Land in St. Clement - rezoning (P.40-2005) – comments

STATES OF JERSEY

r

LAND IN ST. CLEMENT: REZONING (P.40/2005) – COMMENTS

Presented to the States on 19th April 2005

by the Environment and Public Services Committee

STATES GREFFE

COMMENTS

Introduction

In responding to this particular proposition, the Committee would wish to have regard to those introductory remarks made in relation to the similar proposition, calling for the rezoning of other land, brought by Deputy Hilton (P.33/2005). Accordingly, the Committee is clearly aware of the concerns of Members and the public in respect of these issues and is seeking to respond in a proactive and conciliatory manner in reviewing the basis of the concerns raised: it seeks to ensure that confidence in the Island Plan, which it believes to be a fundamentally sound and highly important tool, is restored.

The Committee is thus proposing that where there are clearly specific anomalies identified by others and supplemented by the findings of the Committee's own review, these matters are addressed. Accordingly, it proposes that a number of areas of land be rezoned to become important open spaces within the built-up area, countryside zone or green zone, and to thus benefit specifically from the relevant policy regimes afforded by Island Plan Policies BE8, C6 and C5 respectively, as detailed within its own proposition (P.77/2005).

Field 108A, St. Clement

With respect to the specifics of Deputy Baudains' proposition, the Environment and Public Services Committee acknowledges that Field 108A is inappropriately included as part of the built-up area and that this land is part of the countryside and should enjoy a greater degree of protection from potential development.

Accordingly, the Environment and Public Services Committee accepts that Field  108A, St.  Clement be rezoned a green zone and be subject to the 2002 Island Plan policy regime of C5 where there is a general presumption against all new forms of development.

Land to the south of Jambart House and land to the south of Jambart Farm, Rue de Jambart, St. Clement

The Committee believes that it is right to maintain the status of both of these sites within the built-up area: both sites comprise part of a private garden or the domestic curtilages of these buildings and the Committee is of the view that it is appropriate for any development proposals upon them to be considered in terms of the existing planning policy regime that is applicable within the built-up area boundary – namely Policies G2 and H8 of the 2002 Island Plan (see Appendix 1).

As has been stated in respect of comments on Deputy Hilton's proposition, the Committee believes that whilst there is a qualified presumption in favour of development within the built-up area boundary, it believes that the criteria based qualifications which make up the Island Plan policies, such as G2 and H8, provide the Committee with the appropriate tools to resist development that would be inappropriate or unacceptable in these locations.

The Environment and Public Services Committee is very clear and entirely comfortable that the qualified presumption in favour of development in the built-up area does not mean that every site within the built-up area can automatically be built upon: this is the key difference between the built-up area policies in the 1987 and 2002 Island Plans. All development proposals within the built-up area boundary must satisfy the relevant policy criteria, particularly those in Policies G2 (and H8, where residential development is proposed). And the Committee feels entirely able to resist development proposals in the built-up area which fail to satisfy these tests: the Committee considers and applies these tests to assess the individual merits of all applications within the built- up area that come before it. Indeed, informal officer advice has already been offered in respect of development proposals for the development of land to the south of Jambart House that certain development proposals would be unlikely to satisfy some of the tests set by the Island Plan.

Clarifications

Deputy Baudains report raises several other points upon which the Committee makes the following comment – A p p r oval of the Island Plan

It i s a cknowledged that comments about the manner in which the Island Plan was finally approved by the

States Assembly on 11th July 2002, as cited in the report dated 12th February 2003 (Appendix  4 of P.40/2005), may be misleading. Notwithstanding, the issue is that the Island Plan was approved by States Members on a standing vote and that, therefore, it may be reasonably assumed that the 2002 Island Plan was overwhelmingly supported.

C o n s ultation process

T h e D eputy is of the opinion that the Island Plan was not produced in an open and inclusive process: the

transcript of Deputy Layzell's speech, appended to Deputy Baudains' proposition at Annex 4, provides details of the extent of the consultation process undertaken in respect of the Island Plan which, it is contended, was extremely extensive.

T h e D eputy acknowledges that Members may have missed' changes to the built-up area boundary in their

having been absorbed by the proposed rezoning of land for Category A housing sites. The Committee would contend, however, that details of these changes were available throughout the review of the new Island Plan and were explicit: the alleged secret sites' were identified on the Consultation Draft Island Proposals Map, which was published in June 2001; over a year prior to the States debate on the Island Plan in July 2002.

It w a s thus incumbent upon Members to raise matters where they had issues with the definition of the

built-up area boundary. Where issues were raised, as a result of the open and inclusive process of consultation that the Committee undertook, the Committee considered them and responded accordingly, including the making of some amendments to the definition of the built-up area boundary in the final draft of the Island Plan published in April 2002.

D e v e lopment of sites in St. Clement

D e p u ty Baudains asserts that applications for dwellings within the built-up area are presently determined

"with the mindset of the 1987 Island Plan" that is, without any qualification to the presumption in favour of development that existed under the former Island Plan and thus without reference to the criteria of the new 2002 Island Plan. This is clearly not the case: the Island Plan is the Committee's primary consideration in the determination of all development applications and the Committee is required to carefully consider the merits of each application relative to the detailed requirements of the appropriate Island Plan policies.

T h e D eputy makes reference to the development of sites in Rue de Hocq and Rue de Samarès as examples

of where the Committee has, in his view, failed to have regard to the requirements of the new Island Plan, and consequently, failed to uphold the assurances given by the then Committee Vice-President, Deputy Alastair Layzell during the Island Plan debate. The Committee would seek to contend this assertion and considers it worthwhile providing some of the detail in respect of the cases cited and would draw Members' attention to the aerial photographs of these sites, and their contexts (attached at Appendices 2 and 3 respectively):

F ie l d 1 4 7 , R  ue de Hocq

T h is d e v el o p ment of 6 two-bedroom houses in the form of one terrace of 3  homes, 2 semi-detached

dwellings and detached home, reflects the varied form and character of buildings along Rue de Hocq: the homes comply with the Committee's standards for internal and external living space. It is a relatively small but dense development of 20 dwellings/acre, relative to that of other development along Rue de Hocq, such as Beachside Mews, at 16 dwellings/acre, but is considered to be appropriate in scale and character to other development which exists in the lane (see Appendix 2);

L a n d a d j a c e nt L'Industrie, Rue de Samarès

T h e d ev  el o p ment of a 0.6  acre former greenhouse site has been approved for 10  new homes: th

site density, of just over 15  dwellings /acre, is similar to that of Broadlands (@  14 dwellings/acre in Rue du Hocq or Oaklands Vineries, in Rue du Presbytere (@  16  dwellings /acre). The schem is considered to be in keeping with the existing character and pattern of development in the area (see Appendix  3).

W e s t R i d in g , Rue de Samarès

T h is s it e c o m prises a large detached property in its own grounds, with a site area of just under one

acre. Approval has been awarded, in principle, for the demolition of the existing property and the redevelopment of the site for 6  homes: this is consistent with the redevelopment of existing developed sites to provide new homes through an efficient use of land, having regard to all other material considerations (see Appendix 3).

Summary and conclusion

On the basis of the above the Committee recognises and accepts that Field  108A in St.  Clement should be rezoned as green zone. It does not, however, consider it necessary for any amendment to be made to the status of land south of Jambart House and Jambart Farm in Rue de Jambart as any development proposals relating to either of these sites can be appropriately and adequately determined within the context of the existing Island Plan policy regime, specifically Policy G2 and H8.

APPENDIX 1

General development considerations

1. In assessing proposals for development, there are a rangeofissues to betaken into account relating to the impact of the developmenton infrastructure and resources, the environment, adjacent uses and the wider community. These are general criteria that apply to all typesofdevelopment and should beread in conjunction with specific policiesofthetopic chapters.
2. S u fficient information will be requested with an application toenable an assessment to bemadeof whether the criteria listed in Policy  G2 have been fully taken into account.
3. W  here a sitedevelopmentbrief has beenproduced, the applicant will alsoneed to provideevidence that the proposeddevelopment satisfies therequirementsof that brief. In certain circumstances, applicants may  also  be  required to  submit design statements, environmental impact statements,  transport assessments,archaeologicalevaluations,site investigations for contaminatedland, access audits, travel plans and wastemanagementplans. Theserequirementsareaddressedunder Policies G4,G5,G6,G12, G17, TT19,TT22andWM2 respectively.

POLICY G2 – GENERAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS Applicants need to demonstrate that the proposed development:

1. w  il l notunreasonably affect the characterandamenityofthearea;
2. w i llnothaveanunreasonableimpactonneighbouringusesand the localenvironmentbyreason of visualintrusionorother amenity considerations;
3. w  ill nothave an unreasonableimpactonagricultural land;
4. w ill not have an unreasonable impact on the landscape, ecology, archaeological remains or architectural featuresand includes where appropriatemeasures for theenhancementof such features and the landscaping of the site;
5. in c orporatessatisfactoryprovisionofamenityandpublicopenspacewhere appropriate;
6. w  ill not have anunreasonableimpacton important openspace or naturalor built features, including trees, hedgerows,banks,walls and fosses;
7. p rovides a satisfactory means ofaccess,manoeuvringspace within the site andadequatespace for parking;

(viii)  w ill not lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, safety or parking;

9. i s accessiblebypedestrians, cyclists and publictransportusers, including those with mobility impairments;
10. w i llnothaveanunreasonableimpactonpublichealth, safety and the environmentby virtue of noise, vibration,dust,light,odour,fumes,electro-magnetic fields or effluent;
11. i s not atrisk from flooding or does not increase the riskof flooding elsewhere;
12. d oes not haveanunreasonableimpactonthe safe operationsof the Airport;

(xiii)  w here possible makes efficient use of construction and demolition materials to avoid generation of

waste and to ensure the efficient use of resources;

14. t akes into accountthe need to design out crimeandto facilitate personal safety and security;
15. en  couragesenergy efficiency throughbuildingdesign, materials, layout and orientation; and
16. i ncludestheprovisionofsatisfactory mains drainage andother service infrastructure.

Applications which do not comply with these principles will not normally be permitted. Housing Development within the Built-up Area

124. Policies H2toH6 deal with sites specifically identified to meet the requirements for Category  A homes in the Plan period. The majorityof Category  B homes will comeforward as windfalldevelopments within the normaldevelopmentprocesson sites within the built-upareawhicharenot specifically allocated for this purpose inthePlan.
125. The new Island Plan Spatial Strategy designates a hierarchy of settlements which together form the boundary  of the  built-up  area,  as defined  on the Island  Proposals Map. This includes the  town  of St.  Helier, 8  urban settlements, 11 key rural settlements and 21 small buil-tup areas and small rural settlements. Proposals for housing development, including new dwellings and extensions and alterations to existing homeswithin the built-up area, will be assessed against criteria relating to its design and impact on the local environmentandneighbouringuses. This policy should beread in conjunction with the general considerations for all developmentscontainedin Policy G2.
126. In particular, all newhousingdevelopments will beexpectedtoprovide a standardofaccommodation that meetstherequirements of the Planning and EnvironmentCommittee, with respect to –

• s it e d ensity;

• p r iv a cy, daylight and noise;

• d w  el ling size, internal layout and room sizes;

• e n e r gy efficiency;

• u s e o f materials;

• c a r p arking space;

• g a r d en and private amenity space;

• p u b l ic open space;

• c h i ld ren's play areas;

• d e s ig ning out crime; and

• l a n d scaping.

T h e se requirements are specified within Planning Policy Advice Notes (see Appendix  2).

127. The intention of designating a built-upareaboundary is to continue to contain future development within existing  limits  and thus  prevent  encroachment into  the  countryside. Housing development will  not therefore generally be allowed outside oftheboundary,except for the replacement ofexistingdwellings and conversions ofexisting buildings. It is oftensaid that there are manysmall corners of land in the countryside, whichcould take infill' developments. On its own, such a developmentmightnot appear intrusive but the cumulativeimpact would be severe for the Island'scountryside, travel patternsand cost of providingcommunity and utility services.

POLICY H8 – HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BUILT-UP AREA Proposals for new dwellings, extensions or alterations to existing dwellings or

changes of use to residential, will normally be permitted within the boundary of the built-up area as defined on the Island Proposals Map, provided that the proposal:

1. i s i n accordance with the required standards forhousingas set by the Planning andEnvironmentCommittee;
2. w i llnotunreasonably affect the characterandamenityofthearea;
3. w  ill nothaveanunreasonableimpacton neighbouring uses andthelocalenvironment by reason of noise, visual intrusion or other amenity considerations;
4. w ill  not  have  an unacceptable  impact on a  Site  of Special Interest, Building ofLocalImportanceor a ConservationArea;
5. w i llnot lead to unacceptable problemsof traffic generation, safety or parking;
6. m  akes useof existing buildings where possible;
7. is appropriate in scale,form,massing,densityanddesign to the siteand its context;

(viii)  i ncorporates where appropriate satisfactory provision of amenity and

public open space, to include landscaping and children's play space;

9. m akes  provision for satisfactory  mains drainage and other service infrastructure;
10. ta k  es into account the needtodesignoutcrimeand facilitate personal safety and security;and
11. i s in accordance with other principles andpoliciesof the Plan. Proposalswhichdonot satisfy these criteria will notnormallybepermitted.

Innovative approaches to the conversion of existing buildings to residential use will be encouraged where they conform with the other principles and policies of the Plan.