This content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost. Let us know if you find any major problems.
Text in this format is not official and should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments. Please see the PDF for the official version of the document.
STATES OF JERSEY
ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – NINTH AMENDMENT
(P.37/2014 Amd.(9)) – COMMENTS
Presented to the States on 11th July 2014 by the Minister for Planning and Environment
STATES GREFFE
2014 Price code: B P.37 Amd.(9)Com.(2)
COMMENTS
Summary
The proposed deletion of Policy GD2: Demolition does not amount to the setting aside of proper environmental considerations, but seeks to ensure that we have in place a pragmatic and viable way of assessing the environmental consequences of planning applications, that can be appropriately used and applied by decision-makers, developers and applicants.
The use and application of Policy GD2 has proved to be difficult, for both decision- makers and applicants: my officers and the Planning Applications Panel have struggled to apply it and it has proved extremely burdensome for applicants. There is no point in keeping a policy if it cannot be used in practice.
Importantly, there are other policies in the Plan which deal with demolition and associated issues of environmental performance. I have also firmed up the control of demolition waste through my waste management policies and guidance, which reduces the amount of demolition in the first place and requires the re-use of as much material as possible. And it is my separate intent to amend the Island's Building Regulations still further to require incrementally improved energy efficiency in new buildings.
The independent planning inspectors were satisfied that I have made the case for omitting Policy GD2, which is also supported by other development professionals.
I would urge the Assembly to reject this amendment. Detailed response
The case for deletion of this policy is summarised in my proposition (page 11, paragraphs 4.50–4.52). It is expanded upon in the Briefing Note that was issued as part of the consultation process for changes to the 2011 Island Plan (attached at the Appendix to these Comments). I will seek here to address the points raised by Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade 's amendment.
First, the Deputy suggests that the sole argument for abandoning this policy is the administrative convenience of my Department: this is wrong and misrepresents the position. For a policy to be effective, it has to be capable of being used, by both applicant and decision-maker. It is clear, from the experience of trying to use the policy, that there are difficulties and issues for all concerned.
The main thrust of the policy is to prevent demolition of a building which is appropriate in sustainability terms to repair or refurbish. There is, however, no common or reliable analysis tool that can be used to measure the sustainability of development projects: this requires the comparison of the environmental credentials of existing buildings compared with new development proposals. The absence of such a tool has weakened the policy and has led, in practice, to the sustainability test' carrying little weight and effectively being skirted over by architects, agents and applicants when making applications, and by decision-makers, when deciding them.
Second, the Deputy suggests that I have been remiss in not issuing supplementary planning guidance to support the assessment of the environmental credentials of new buildings compared with existing buildings. The Deputy fails to mention that my
Department has prepared draft supplementary planning guidance which was submitted to the Examination in Public, at which the Deputy was present. This is what the independent planning inspectors said about the issue –
"We therefore now turn to Policy GD2 (1) and (6), which we see as at the heart of the issue, and which turn on the phrase "sustainability terms". The generally accepted definition of sustainable development, as noted in the Working Draft SPG, is that in the Brundtland Report Our Common Future (1987): Development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This in turn, and again as noted in the Working Draft SPG, is generally treated as comprising 4 aspects: social, environmental, economic and prudent use of natural resources, most aspects of which can be properly addressed through a sound application of the other Plan Policies. However, an important – many would say vital – element of the environmental component concerns minimising Green House Gas emissions, generally measured in CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent).
In principle it is possible to assess the embedded carbon retained in an existing building, expended in its refurbishment and operational carbon emitted over the remainder of its expected life, and to compare the net impact against the embedded carbon expended in its demolition and replacement together with the latter's annual operational carbon emitted over the equivalent period.
We heard assertions that retention and refurbishment will generally be preferable, because of the high emissions during demolition and replacement, or conversely that replacement may well be preferable because of the potentially much more efficient replacement in use and maintenance. There are methodology tools available for this, such the Carbon Profiling Model published by the RICS1 in conjunction with others (appended to OS2). It is evident, however, that the use of such tools is far from straightforward, particularly taking into account practical considerations such as estimating the whole life expectancy of existing and replacement buildings, the fact that different elements of a building may have different life expectancies or that a replacement will not always be like for like. Just by way of example: the demolition of a single house and its replacement by several may well in isolation increase carbon emissions, but less so than its retention combined with the erection of the equivalent number of new houses on another site.
To such complexities simply in assessing CO2e need to be added the other aspects of sustainability referred to in the preceding paragraph."
The matter is, therefore, far from simple and, at nearly 50 pages long, this draft guidance was considered to be both unduly cumbersome and unwieldy for all concerned in terms of the practical implications of its use; and inappropriate, relative to the level of information that should be sought for planning applications involving the demolition of one or more buildings.
On the basis of all of the above, I would hope that the Assembly has sufficient assurance that there are other safeguards within the Plan to ensure that environmental sustainability considerations of new buildings are adequately considered, and that the case for the removal of Policy GD2 is adequately made.
APPENDIX