States Meeting Transcript - 21/06/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 21st JUNE 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS..............................................................................5

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011)..................................................5

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):......................5 Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.......................................................13 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................13

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(34))................................................................................14

1.2.1 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary : ...................................................15

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-ninth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(39))................................................................................15

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................15
2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:.......................................................15
3. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................16

4. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(32))................................................................................16

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................16
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................16
3. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................17
4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................17
5. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................17
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................17
7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................18

5. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(3))......19

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................19
2. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................19
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................19
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................20
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................20 The Attorney General:........................................................................20
6. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................20
7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:.....................................................21
8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................21
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................21
10. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................21
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................21
12. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier : ..................................................21
13. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour:..........................................21

14. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................21

6. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(44))................................................................................23

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................23
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................24
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................24
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................24

5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................24
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................24
7. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................25

7. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - part 2........................................................................25

1.7.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................26

8. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38) Amd.)..................................26

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................27
2. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................27
3. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................28
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................28
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................28
6. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................28

9. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - part 2 as amended..........................................................29

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................30
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................30
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................30
4. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................30
5. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................30

6. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................31
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................31

10. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37)) - part 1........................................................................32

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence:..........................................33
2. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................33
3. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................33

11. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - part 3........................................................................34

1.11.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................34

12. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-sixth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(46)) 34

1. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................34
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................35
3. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................35
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................35
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................35
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:...................................................36

7. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................36
8. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................36

13. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): ninth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(9)) .....37

1. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................38
2. The Connétable of St. John : .........................................................40
3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................41
4. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................42 The Attorney General:........................................................................42
5. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................43
6. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................44
7. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................45 The Attorney General:........................................................................45
8. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................45
9. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................46
10. Deputy A.E. Jeune :................................................................46
11. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :............................................46
12. Deputy M. Tadier : .................................................................47

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................49

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................49

13. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour : ..............................................49
14. The Connétable of St. Mary:.......................................................50
15. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:..........................................................51
16. Senator S.C. Ferguson: ............................................................52
17. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................52
18. Senator F.E. Cohen:................................................................54 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ........................................................56 The Attorney General:........................................................................56
19. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................56
20. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................57
21. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ....................................................57
22. Deputy A.T. Dupre:................................................................57 The AttorneyGeneral:........................................................................57
23. Senator B.E. Shenton:..............................................................58
24. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................58 Deputy J.A. Martin:..........................................................................59 The Attorney General:........................................................................59
25. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.......................................................60

14. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(23))................................................................................69

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................69
2. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................70
3. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................71
4. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................72
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................73

15. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirtieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(30)) 74

1.15.1 Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................75

16. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 5................................................................76

1.16.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................77

17. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-ninth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(49)) 77

1. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................77
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................78
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................78
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................78
5. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................78
6. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................79
7. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................79
8. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................79

18. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraphs 7 to 9...........................................................80

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................80
2. Deputy A.T. Dupre: .................................................................81
3. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................81
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................82
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................82
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................82
7. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................83
8. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................83
9. The Connétable of St. Mary : ........................................................83
10. Senator J.L. Perchard:..............................................................84
11. The Deputy of St. Ouen:...........................................................84
12. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................85
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:............................................................86
14. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................86
15. The Connétable of St. Saviour:....................................................87
16. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................87
17. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................88
18. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................88
19. Senator F.E. Cohen:................................................................89
20. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.......................................................89
21. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................93

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS 1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) The Bailiff :

Very well. Then we come to Public Business and the Island Plan - Projet 48 - lodged by the Minister for Planning and Environment and I will ask the Greffier to read the proposition.

The Greffier of the States:

The States are asked to decide whether they are of opinion to approve, in accordance with Article 3(1) of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, the revised Draft Island Plan 2011.

The Bailiff :

I call upon the Minister for Planning and Environment to propose the Plan. Senator A. Breckon:

I wonder if I may ask a procedural matter of you first? Is it correct to say that when the Minister has proposed it we then move straight to amendments and there is no preamble on the general Island Plan at all, is there?

The Bailiff :

That is correct, yes. Senator A. Breckon:

Is there any way, within the process, then, that we can give, perhaps, occasional brickbats to the Minister for Planning and Environment in some way shape or form within this debate?

The Bailiff :

Well, of course, after all the amendments have been debated, there will be the debate upon the Plan itself as amended, or not, and at that stage, of course, Members can raise those sorts of points.

1.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):

I am honoured to propose the new Island Plan to the Assembly. The Plan before the Assembly represents my assessment of the balances needed to deliver sustainability over the next decade. The process now changes and when the Plan emerges from the States it will be a different Plan, one that will be the subject of debate on dozens of amendments, some of which will have been accepted and some rejected. The emergent Plan will represent the views of the majority of this Assembly and at that point it becomes the Assembly's Plan for the next decade. In this way the Island Plan debate is different from other debates as it is not won or lost. The debate progresses; the Plan is framed by the decisions States Members made as we consider each amendment in turn. There are a few key amendments on which the Plan is based but whether most amendments are successful or not simply shape the Plan as the debate unfolds. I am well aware that Members have been lobbied hard by landowners, developers and their supporters and that is to be expected. Tens of millions of super profits will be made on the basis of the decisions we make over the next few days. It is my contention that we do not need to rezone much land in the countryside. It is my contention that we should provide for any shortfall in the early days of the Plan by delivering affordable homes on States-owned land and it is my contention that we should not be influenced by the cries of the beneficiaries of multi-million profits through rezoning. [Approbation] Members will make up their own minds on the choices they wish to make for the Island and that will frame the Plan that emerges at the end of the debate. For a small Island, such as ours, land is a precious and finite resource of fundamental importance and it is essential that it is used wisely and that is what an Island Plan endeavours to deliver. Changes in the States and the use of land are essential to accommodate changes within our community, changes in demographics, accommodating the aged community, and changes in the quantum and nature of our population. This Island Plan delivers many novel proposals. A national park is proposed offering the highest level of protection to our most precious coastline. The Plan introduces a new skyline of business policy to protect coastline. It does away with the old Countryside Zone and merges this old troublesome designation into a new Green Zone across the majority of the Island. It introduces a new allotments policy. It delivers regeneration of our town and concentrates spacious high quality new homes in the urban areas. It highlights new regeneration zones including the airport and port regions. It promotes varying types of new homes and it requires all new homes to be spacious with adequate amenities. It promotes public parks and pocket parks. It delivers affordable housing not through the rezoning of numerous green fields but through implementing the will of the States when it approved the Deputy of Grouville 's proposition in 2008. Every large development scheme will be required to make an affordable housing contribution and we propose a new policy to achieve wider planning gains from developments. This novel proposal for the delivery of affordable housing has caused much huffing and puffing from developers, landowners and their political supporters. They claim it will kill the construction industry and drive developers into the sea. Well, it will not and most have not even taken the trouble to consider the elegant and flexible implementation policy I unveiled last week. They had made their minds up before the policy was released, had called a conference and one of their key political supporters in a radio interview, extraordinarily said: "I have not seen it yet but I am sure it will not work." Previous Island Plans have delivered multi-million pound profits for landowners and developers through countryside land rezoning. Simply put, an agricultural field worth a few thousand pounds one day, as a result of a rezoning decision, was suddenly worth millions and the public gained little or no benefit. This Plan does not do that and it contains very little large-scale rezoning, so I am not surprised that some expectant landowners are bleating a little. But in 2008 this Assembly made a decision that in future all large developments would make an affordable housing contribution and this is precisely what I have endeavoured to deliver. This Plan requires landowners and developers to make an affordable housing contribution and it encourages the States to use some of its own land to provide other much needed affordable houses for Island families. What is an affordable house? Well, we may each have our own views but in my view it is a 3-bedroom home at around £250,000. That is exactly what was delivered at La Providence for 46 delightfully happy Island families. It is a model for the future. Home ownership is the aspiration of the majority but not for all and the Plan also delivers, through its life, 500 social

rented homes of equal quality. [9:45]

I also want to address the curious claims that have been made that the inspectors' report and the addendum are somehow flawed and in some way inadmissible. The inspectors' report, whether it be the main body of the report or the addendum is an advisory document. It is not a binding document on the Minister for Planning and Environment and Members will have realised this as they are fully aware that some of the inspectors' recommendations have been accepted and others have been rejected. The addendum is simply the result of my asking the inspectors for their views on the comments made by the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) debate in relation to the provision of affordable housing on States- owned sites. As Members will know from my previously lodged comments, I have always intended that the States will be required to provide additional affordable housing on States-owned sites but as the matter had been so pertinently raised in the S.o.J.D.C. debate and the requirements encouragingly supported I asked the inspectors to comment. To be clear, the Council of Ministers has always been supportive of the principle of delivering some affordable housing on States-owned land and the unequivocal support of the Plan from the Council of Ministers reinforces this firm and absolute commitment. The inspectors' report was produced for my consideration and as part of the open and transparent process I have made its contents publicly available. This is just one document

of the many thousands that have been placed in the public domain. The Island Plan has been a 4 year project and has been the most open and transparent public consultation exercise ever held in the Island as far as I am aware. The Green Paper in 2008, alone, generated 7,500 specific issues from respondents and the White Paper in 2009 some 1,200 specific comments. Every Islander has had the opportunity to make comments and each comment has been examined and the responses made public. The preparation and development of this Plan has been carried out under the new context provided by the Planning and Building Law (Jersey) 2002. This meant a far more open and engaging process of planned preparation and scrutiny including, for the first time, an independent review by expert planning inspectors. We have collected mountains of data, analysed reams of papers and consulted numerous experts. We have also consulted more widely with Islanders than ever before. The consultation process with stakeholders started in October 2007. This resulted in a Green Paper in July 2008 and a White Paper in September 2009. Between them they have been subjected to 10 months of public and continuous consultation. For the first time we have subjected the Plan to an independent strategic environmental assessment published in June 2010. For the first time for any Plan it was considered at an open Examination in Public conducted by independent planning inspectors, Mr. Chris Shepley C.B.E. (Commander of the Order of the British Empire), and Mr. Alan Langton. Mr. Shepley is a former president of the Royal Town Planning Institute and former Chief Planning Inspector for England and Wales. The Examination in Public lasted 12 days and involved 97 participants and over 100 site visits. The inspectors also sat for a second time recently to consider the amendments from States Members. The progress of the Island Plan Review has been a standing item on the agenda of my meetings with the Environment Scrutiny Panel. I must commend the chairman and his members for their approach and on the many issues they have raised for the benefit of the Plan over the period of its development. The Plan that emerges from this debate will be subjected to further review through the introduction of an annual monitoring report so that we can all keep an eye on its progress and success. The process of

engagement was specifically extended and I propose changes to the law to allow States Members to lodge amendments as previously they would have been unable to do so. This, in itself, resulted in a huge number of amendments, all of which had to be examined and responded to very late in the process. Most amendments from States Members improved the proposals and I have, therefore, accepted the majority. Others needed some modification on my part to enable their intent to marry with the principles of the Plan, and in these cases I have lodged minor amendments to States Members' amendments. Some amendments did not fit with my vision for the Island Plan and these I have had to reject but it is up to this Assembly to decide on its vision for the next 10 years. As Members will have seen we have had a comprehensive, robust and transparent process in preparing this Plan and what is before the Assembly today is the result of this fully inclusive process. One member of the public asked me why we have a Plan at all and why do we need a new one now. The importance of the land use planning cannot be overstated. It affects the quality of life for everyone living in Jersey by balancing the competing demands for land with the need to protect the environment. The Island Plan sits at the heart of the Plan-led system. It is used to make decisions on planning applications and serves an important role in guiding development to the right locations and encouraging investment. The current Island Plan was approved by the States of Jersey in July 2002 and much has changed since then. The 2002 Plan has served the Island well and its underlying principles have stood the test of time. But the Island has moved on and the world and Island standards have changed and importantly, we have a clearer understanding of the wishes of our community. The Island now faces new and different challenges and it is time for a new Plan. Importantly, there is also a statutory obligation to have a new Plan within 10 years of the last Plan. The Plan comprises a written statement and a proposals map and it includes a number of chapters with policies to be applied to a variety of issues. The proposals map shows site specific proposals and areas of the Island to which certain policies apply. The Plan is put together with reference to many factors, these include Jersey's constitutional, legislative and institutional framework, the relevant international treaties, conventions and protocols which have been extended to Jersey, the States Strategic Plan and other existing and emerging States strategic plans and policies, for example, the sustainable transport policy. A key issue for the Plan that is addressed and provided by the Strategic Plan relates to population and how this is expected to change over the Plan period. Specifically, in the short term, the States have adopted a policy allowing maximum inward migration at a rolling 5-year average of no more than 150 heads of household per year. This is an overall increase of approximately 325 people per annum. This is to be reviewed and reset every 3 years and this figure has been used to assess and formulate many of the planning policies in the new Island Plan especially housing demand over the Plan period. The Plan is a necessarily comprehensive document, given the range and depth of issues it must address. To assist Members in their deliberations of the Plan my report attached to the proposition includes a summary of the main points of the Plan. While I will not meander through every policy I will highlight some of the key policies. The principles underpinning the Plan. The Plan is founded on a series of key principles. These principles are a particularly important part of the Plan because they provide the basis upon which everything else in the Plan follows. These key principles include sustainable developments, the protection of the environment, economic growth and diversification, travel and transport and quality of design. This Plan is designed to benefit the majority and it is a Plan reflecting many of the views we have received during the consultation period. The Plan provides for the Island's housing needs over the next 10 years. It protects our green countryside. It includes a new Coastal National Park and protects our world class coastline. It focuses new developments within the built-up area and not on green fields and it ensures that new investment is focused on the built-up area providing a catalyst for the regeneration of the town. It also, importantly, places more responsibility on developers and landowners to play their part in the delivery of affordable housing and delivering other planning obligations for the benefit of the community. The regeneration of our built-up areas is one of the key benefits of this Plan. It is absolutely vital that our town areas benefit from the continued development investment that we have seen recently. It is vital that new homes are great places to live and bring up families, that they are large with suitable amenities both inside and out and that they have adequate car parking. St. Helier , especially, is a place to be proud of with many outstanding places and features. However, many areas that were once delightful streets are looking tired and in need of regeneration. By the continued focusing of investment into this area we can continue to evolve the town into a place in which a high quality residential lifestyle is available to all. It will become a better place to live and a first choice to live. The Island Plan is prudent and sensible. It seeks to meet demand both for housing and employment floor space in a considered and balanced way by recycling the land we have already built upon and not swallowing up easy to develop greenfield sites. It does not follow the easy route of rezoning our countryside and it provides a responsible approach to reusing our existing urban areas. Importantly, it introduces a groundbreaking affordable housing policy for Jersey in line with the wishes of this Assembly in 2008 to deliver new affordable homes via the development industry. Through the key principles the Plan also protects the Island's unique identity and character. It seeks to support the maintenance and growth of the Island's economy and sets out how the planning system can help to reduce the need to travel and to travel more sustainably. Underpinning all of the detailed development policies in the Plan is the need for high quality design. It is of continuing importance for developments in this Island to reflect the desire and expectation for first class architecture and design which has now become the norm. We often forget how far we have come in the last few

years. The standards of new schemes now emerging are light years ahead of their predecessors. The Ogier building, 50 Colomberie, Wayside at St. Ouen, Greenacres, El Tico and St. Cecilia are all wonderful examples. I will now move on to some of the key headlines contained within the Plan and I will start with, undoubtedly, the most controversial part of any Island Plan, that is housing. There can be no doubt that housing and, in particular, the location of new housing developments is the most contentious and controversial subject area to be tackled by the new Plan. Few issues raise fiercer passions in the Island. I think we have adopted a sensible approach that is in line with Islanders' wishes. We seek to make the best use of land we have already used and developed and therefore we focussed the Island's development needs on the built-up area. By doing this we focus investment that benefits and regenerates the town. This, in turn, will enhance the quality and environment of those areas. Urban living will be enhanced by raised space standards, providing more and better open space and ensuring homes are of high quality design. The evidence of the extent of housing need and particularly affordable housing has been thoroughly challenged and scrutinised at the Examination in Public and has been upheld by the independent inspectors as a justifiable basis on which to proceed and plan. I am grateful for unequivocal support of the Minister for Housing for the affordable housing implementation proposals and for the work he and his department have undertaken. The Plan seeks to provide 4,000 homes that are estimated to be required by 2020, 1,000 of which will be affordable either intermediate housing to buy or social rented homes. Most of this requirement is generated by natural changes to the existing population, rather than inward migration. While the demand for homes is estimated at 4,000 the Plan identifies a potential supply of 4,700 homes. This level of potential oversupply is considered essential given that some sites might not come forward for development and particularly to ensure that the necessary level of affordable housing is achieved. The Plan sets out new and varied mechanisms to deliver more affordable homes in Jersey. First, I have proposed the new H3 affordable housing policy requiring all new large scale residential developments over a certain threshold to contribute to affordable housing. The thresholds and proportions of affordable housing to be provided are to increase over time on an incremental basis to enable this new policy mechanism to bed in and to become established after its commencement in 2012. Because this policy is new and will take time to become operational the Plan seeks to ensure that provision of affordable homes can also be achieved early in the Plan period. To do this I have proposed to rezone 3 sites in new Category A' homes which will deliver around 100 homes. These are Field 1219 Mont-à-l'Abbé, De La Mare Nurseries at Grouville for 37 homes and Field 785 in St. Ouen for 22 homes. I have devised a novel affordable housing mechanism and released this last week. In basic terms this seeks to marry the demand for affordable housing with the natural adjustment that needs to take place in the development and land speculation market. The mechanism accepts that a transition phase is essential and accepts that continued vitality of the construction market is essential. The bite of the affordable housing obligations will be phased in so that the industry can

get used to the policy. This will work through an annual consultation with the development industry to establish the provisional rate for affordable housing and at the same time maintaining the vitality of the construction industry. This consultation will include other stakeholders. This mechanism is eminently flexible and will allow the provision of affordable housing to be adjusted to suit market conditions.

[10:00]

There is nothing for the construction industry to fear. Yes, super land-rezoning profits will be reduced but the annual rate will ensure that the construction continues and that developers continue to make a good profit. While the requirement to provide an affordable housing contribution is new to Jersey it is well bedded in the U.K. (United Kingdom) and the levels we are proposing in Jersey are far less than is prevalent in the U.K. Once the policy has settled down it is my expectation that land values will fall to reflect the affordable housing contribution. Developer profit margins will remain largely unchanged so the claims that the policy will kill the development and construction industry are simply nonsense. Do not be duped. The development industry and those who are supporting them will continue to flourish but land profits will undoubtedly be reduced. As I said, this policy has been working well in the United Kingdom for more than 50 years and it will work well here. Do not believe the scaremongering. Ultimately, when the policy is through its transition period, the mechanism will ensure that affordable housing is provided, development vitality is maintained, albeit that land values for residential development will be reduced. My second key policy in this area is in relation to a requirement for the States to provide additional affordable housing on States-owned sites. The States holds publicly-owned sites as effective custodian of the land for the people of Jersey. We all believe it is both appropriate and morally incumbent on the States to use some of its land for the provision of affordable housing for the people of the Island. Therefore, I am proposing that the States provides an additional 150 homes on States-owned land. I am not requiring the States to provide housing for every site and the policy is entirely flexible. The homes can be provided on a single site, across all sites, or in any combination the States delivery body wishes, in consultation with the Planning Department. Remember also that the commuted payments from private affordable housing contributions will also be available to be spent on the provision of affordable housing on States-owned sites. I do not consider it appropriate to rezone more green or Countryside-zoned land as this is an increasingly scarce resource and that is why I have developed these novel policies. If we follow my suggested policy, we do not need to rezone more land in the countryside to deliver affordable housing. The inspectors have assessed this strategy of States-owned land and agreed with it. They have raised some suggestions in relation to delivery and timing and have proposed that I include a trigger mechanism within the Plan. Simply put, if the States sites do not come forward for any reason and have planning permissions in place within 2 years, they have recommended we review the Plan immediately to look at other privately-owned sites. It is a simple concept and provides a belt-and-braces approach. I hope this provides an added layer of certainty to affordable housing delivery and should provide comfort to States Members. Using States-owned sites, many of which are very well located and fit within the planned spatial strategy, is - in my view - a logical and sustainable route to take. I do not want to see housing development outside the built-up area unless absolutely necessary. We must regard the countryside as sacrosanct. I have also introduced a new policy, which allows Planning to consider the type of homes being provided as part of a development proposal as well as the number. This will be used alongside the latest evidence of identified need for different forms of housing. For the first time, therefore, it will be possible to influence the form of residential accommodation that is provided, whether it is in the form of houses or flats or whether it is one-, 2- or 3-bedroom, to ensure that it is helping to meet what the Island requires. The Plan also seeks to introduce a new minimum density standard policy to be determined and set through the publication and adoption of supplementary planning guidance. All new housing developments over 1.125 vergées. Again, this is vital if we are to make the best use of what we have already developed and avoid unnecessary pressure on our countryside. Overall, the plan meets the housing needs of the Island for the next 10 years, protects green fields, ensures regeneration of the built-up area and ensures that appropriate responsibility to deliver affordable homes is placed upon developers and the States itself. I will now highlight the natural environment and some key changes in this area. The Plan maintains and enhances the levels of protection to be provided to the Island's sensitive coast and countryside. The key is the introduction of the Coastal National Park, which fits with most Islanders' wishes to protect these wonderful landscapes. This is based on a countryside character appraisal. Importantly, the designation also includes our offshore reefs and this will protect some of the best natural assets the Island has. This policy will provide maximum protection to land designated as National Park. I have also introduced a new policy to protect biodiversity throughout the Island and enhance protection for trees, woodland and boundary features. I have simplified the protection for the remainder of the countryside. The old Plan was confusing, with 2 Green Zones, one the Countryside Zone and the other the Green Zone. I have now deleted the Countryside Zone and all of our countryside is now simply Green Zone with a single policy regime. Built-up area boundary has been reduced so that I have been able to add an additional 586 vergées of land from the previous built-up area into the new Green Zone. Overall, the Plan adds protection to the countryside and the coastline and simplifies the planning policy regime which applies to it. Turning now to the built environment. The built environment part of the Plan provides the policy framework for the regeneration of St. Helier . The Plan introduces new Regeneration Zones, including the airport, Fort Regent, East of Albert area and some of St. Helier. More detailed master planning will, of course, need to be done in these areas if the principle is agreed but I believe this is a positive step forward. We can improve the quality of urban areas and promote urban living, once a first choice for many Islanders. The Plan also proposes that we

develop specific masterplans for identifiable areas of the Island. Examples include Five Oaks and in the Island's rural areas, by working with the Parishes in Parish planning and now, in accepting amendments in St. Brelade and St. Saviour. We have already had excellent engagement from the

Constable and Deputy of St. John who have developed a first-class Parish plan together with their committee. I would also like to compliment the Constable of St. Martin for his work in progressing the St. Martin's plan, 2 excellent examples of the Parishes setting a vision for their future development. I sincerely hope this work will be taken up by other Parishes and the work extended. It is an excellent example. Again, we are consistent in this chapter to ensure we are making best use of the land that has already been developed so that we ensure future development investment provides regeneration and an uplift in quality of our built-up areas. The economy. In terms of the economy, the draft Plan recognises the changed economic circumstances of the Island and seeks to ensure that the planning system can respond appropriately. It seeks to protect existing land and buildings and employment use while making provision for and enabling economic development and diversification. The Plan recognises that the development of the Waterfront and the continuing structural change to the Island's economic base will, as is already happening, release land from office and tourism uses, which will help regenerate the town through their conversion and redevelopment. This is already happening. The Plan identifies that the need for office accommodation over the planned period can be principally met within the Waterfront and the Town Centre while the need for light industrial warehousing space can be met through the use of States- owned land such as La Collette and the non-operational land at the Jersey Airport. Importantly, I am implementing changes to the General Development Order and this was finally signed this morning, which means that light industrial premises can now be extended by 5 per cent without requiring planning consent. This provides an additional potential increase of 75,000 square feet of light industrial space in the Island. The tail-off of low value consignment relief has also played a part in reducing the demand for new light industrial and warehouse space and based on the latest assessments from Economic Development, we can manage our future needs for light industrial space using existing development land and we will not need to encroach into green fields or the countryside. With regard to retailing: the Plan upholds and enhances the existing hierarchy of shopping centres with particular emphasis on the need to protect the vitality and viability of the St. Helier Town Centre and the Central Market. We have an excellent retail-planning framework and through its use, we have been able to resist major out of town shopping and, as a result, have kept St. Helier vibrant. It is evident from the recent introduction of a major new entrant into the Island's food retail market that Island Plan policies are able to accommodate and enhance local competition without compromising spatial planning objectives. This approach is therefore continued and revised in the Island Plan. The Plan also responds to the rural economy strategy and seeks to protect agricultural land, to support agriculture as well as the diversification of the rural economy, including support for tourism. The Plan also recognises that while exceptions may be made in the countryside to support development that is essential to agriculture, where development becomes redundant to the agricultural industry, the land should be restored to ensure the maintenance of the

Island's countryside character rather than new users being introduced that may erode and harm it. The historic environment. In terms of the historic environment, I have changed the policy regime and this now reflects the changes I have made to simplify the historic environment protection regime. This introduces a single category for the protection of listed buildings and places with 4 subclasses. This will allow planning to concentrate on the most important historic buildings and allow the less significant to change and adapt over time, an example of the more flexible regime. The Plan also reflects the introduction of conservation areas and after full consultation we will publish advice by way of supplementary planning guidance. Social community and open space. Moving into now the social and community needs. Basic social and community services are essential for the well-being of any community and include education, healthcare and leisure facilities, together with the availability of, and access to, open space. The Plan supports the new development of St. Martin 's Primary School as well as the potential for new playing facilities to be provided to serve Haute Vallée, First Tower, Les Landes, Grouville and St. John's schools. This will all enhance the quality of the service offered by the Education Department and will provide much-needed open space. The plan recognises the potential of our Health and Social Services property portfolio and it enables the development of this to meet the needs of future health and care

facilities. Significantly, the plan identifies, categorises and protects the Island's open spaces, including commercial sports facilities requiring the enhancement of the quantity and quality of open space provision as part of new development. New open space and public rural strategies are required to inform this and will be developed over the Plan period. The Plan introduces a new policy framework for the provision of new allotments and the protection of existing facilities. Travel and transport. The Plan seeks to complement and assist the implementation of the new Sustainable Transport Policy recently approved by the States Assembly. The planning system mainly achieves this by influencing the location of development so that people have a real choice about how they travel. The Plan seeks to enable all forms of transportation and provide a high level of choice. The Plan seeks to be flexible and allow for, for example, the undoubted increase in electric car usage over the life of the Plan. In order to improve the development of cycling and public transport, the Plan requires direct financial contributions from developers for the enhancement of new facilities. This is specifically highlighted in relation to the Eastern Cycle Route and the Plan will require contributions to be made by major new developments in the east of the Island. In relation to the bus service, it requires contributions to be made by some major new developments to enhance the bus service. The Plan provides new supplementary planning guidance on parking standards based on a range of minimum and maximum standards. This will be subject to further consultation and will again reflect Islanders' wishes for a Plan that is forward-looking in transportation changes. In relation to air travel, I have already mentioned the new regeneration zone for the airport, which will drive new investment into the airport. The Plan also provides new public safety zones. These have been developed on a much more evidence-based approach than those presently in use and better reflect the risks posed to development of the operation of the airport. Natural resources and utilities. One of the key parts of Island life, now and into the future, is the wise and efficient use of our Island resources. The Plan introduces a suite of policies designed to protect and promote the wise use of water and energy resources as well as protecting air quality. In terms of energy use, this Plan introduces new policies requiring renewable energy production as part of some new development. Energy is an exciting area of work and my department are leading on producing the energy strategy for the Island. This Plan is cognisant of the potential for the emergence of offshore utility scale renewable energy development during the Plan period and provides a policy regime to manage this. Much of this work is being led by the Renewable Energy Commission chaired by the Constable of Grouville and I have no doubt that this work will prove the catalyst for significant and positive change over the years in terms of our

energy consumption pacts. [10:15]

The plan also deals with provision and availability of aggregates and importantly encourages the recycling of aggregates within new developments. It goes on to cover waste management and reflects the solid waste strategy and the emergent liquid waste strategy. The Plan recommends that we should not use our waste to reclaim more land but we should make best use of the sites we already have to dispose of inert waste. These include the La Gigoulande Quarry. General development. As I have already said, the Plan is used to assess planning applications and therefore the general development section has a number of policies used to achieve this. One key new policy is the policy on skyline views and vistas. This specifically requires the impact of development on distant views and skylines to be a material consideration. We have introduced this in direct response to pressure from development around the Island's sensitive coastline. Implementation and monitoring. To be successful, the Plan relies on effective implementation. It will entail positive action on behalf of the new Minister for Planning and Environment, other Ministers and other agencies in respect of, and in particular, master planning and particularly property holdings and S.o.J.D.C. Putting the Plan into practice will therefore require all departments to work together and to work towards common goals. The Plan will become a corporate policy document and the Plan will be subjected to continuing annual monitoring and appraisal. Many implementation aspects of the Plan will be subject to specific supplementary planning guidance notes. These will be

developed with full consultation and in an open and transparent environment. In conclusion, the Island Plan is the principal document for planning and use of land in Jersey for the next 10 years. By influencing the way in which land is used and development takes place, the Plan is able to make a vital contribution to the well-being of the local community, the success of the local economy and the quality of the local environment. We need to replace the current 2002 Plan and the importance of adopting a new up-to-date Plan can not be overstated. This new Plan is essential to properly address the complex land uses which face the Island now and over the next 10 years. The revised draft Plan has been prepared following an exhaustively comprehensive review process and, as I have highlighted, having more open and rigorous process of engagement in scrutiny than any previous Island Plan. The Plan is consistent with the strategic objectives of the States and fully embraces the concept of sustainable development. As such, it seeks to strike the right balance between the protection of the environment and the developing needs of the community. The independent planning inspectors have seen many such development plans, have commended the Plan and have stated that it could stand comfortably alongside the best examples in the U.K. It is a Plan that protects the countryside, protects the coastline, ensures that we use the land we already have developed to its maximum potential before using green fields. It minimises the loss of green fields. It regenerates the town and urban areas. It increases architectural and design quality and delivers much needed affordable housing. I will end where I started. The proposals represent my best assessment of the way forward for the next 10 years. The balance I have struck will not be every Member's ideal and over the next few days, we will, through debate over the amendments, develop a Plan that represents the majority view of this Assembly. I commend the Island Plan to the Assembly. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Is the proposition seconded? [Seconded] Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

Now, a question that is about the procedure of the Island Plan as a whole. I did trail it to the Attorney General and to the Minister but I did not want to steal the Minister's thunder so we have had the opening speech, which is great. The question was I am sure that I have seen in one of the amendments by the Minister a reference to the fact that the Plan could be amended later. Now, my understanding has always been, and all the amendments I am sure have been done on the basis, that it is pretty well set in stone for 10 years but then I am sure that I saw that somewhere. I have looked and I cannot find it but I just wanted to check with the Attorney General what the position was once the Plan, as amended, is approved by the Assembly, if it is. Just how set in stone is it? Is it amenable to review or amendment later?

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

Yes, the Island Plan is amenable to review and amendment later. The mechanism for doing so will be the Minister would bring forward a revision to the Island Plan under Article 3 of the Planning Law. It was only he who could bring such a revision so he would have to do so, if it was not his

choice, at the request of States Members, presumably on a proposition. But I see no difficulty with a revision of the Island Plan. The Law provides that any revision can be brought up to a period of 10 years from the adoption of an Island Plan and consequently one could be brought at any time.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Thank you for that clarification. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

Could I just ask for a point of order and a point of clarification? Firstly, in the opening speech, the Minister I am sure he did not mean to he may have meant to but the point I want clarified, that all landowners and developers are greedy millionaires and secondly he also suggested that States Members have been the words were "lobbied" and "pressurised" by developers and landowners and residents. Can he categorically assure this House that he has not been lobbied and pressurised by other States Members to take in and put out fields in the Island Plan?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Firstly, I did not say and it is a misinterpretation of my speech that all developers and landowners were multi-millionaires. I made the specific point that through rezoning in the past, fields that have been worth a few thousand pounds were suddenly worth multi-million pounds and that was possibly the reason why some of the objections have arisen. As far as being lobbied by States Members, I have been lobbied by all sorts of people, including States Members, developers and others. It is my job to set a path through the lobbying and to deliver to the States a Plan that I believe in and that is what I have done.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Now, the Greffier and Deputy Greffier and their team have worked extraordinarily hard [Approbation] to try and pull together all the various amendments which have been lodged and Members should have on their desks the proposed order of debate, which follows the normal pattern. Now, because there are so many amendments, what I propose to do is when an amendment is read, I shall immediately ask the Minister to indicate whether he is going to accept it or not. If he is, then, given the sheer volume of amendments, I very much hope that proposers of amendments can then keep their speeches short [Approbation] and that Members will not feel the need to speak on it unless, of course, they wish to oppose it. But assuming they are on side with the amendment and the acceptance, it seems to me there is not usually going to be much need for Members to add another reason for accepting the amendment. So I do ask Members to exercise restraint and concentrate on the issues which really divide Members where the debate will have, of course, to take place fully.

Connétable S.A. Yates of St. Martin :

My amendment is Amendment 7 and I notice that my batting order is on the last page. I have a longstanding family arrangement and I shall be away from the Island next week so I would hope that I could see my amendment this week.

The Bailiff :

That may be in the hands of your colleagues, Connétable , but, of course, the principle which has been followed is the principle set out in Standing Orders which is that amendments are taken for debate in the order in which they relate to the text of the Plan, not, of course, in the order in which they were lodged. So that is the position but clearly, if there is some critical point later on and you invite Members to see whether we can take it out of sequence, then no doubt Members can consider that at the time.

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(34)) The Bailiff :

So we then move to the proposed order of debate and the first amendment is Amendment 34 lodged by the Connétable of St. Mary. Again, with Members' permission, I propose to ask the Greffier to read short amendments just to remind Members what it is about but where there is a very long one, I hope that Members will agree to it being taken as read. This is a short one so I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Thirty-fourth amendment, page 2. After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words "except that in the Introduction, on page xvii, after the words "For the avoidance of doubt, the following development plans and frameworks are superseded by the new Island Plan:" delete the words "1. St. Mary 's Village Development Plan (1994)" and renumber the list accordingly.

The Bailiff :

Now, Minister, is this one which you propose to accept or not? Senator F.E. Cohen:

I accept this amendment.

The Bailiff :

You will be accepting this amendment. Very well, Connétable .

1.2.1 Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary :

I do hope that I can set a marker for a short proposal speech and hopefully a very short, tight debate if one is necessary. I trust Members will have read the report accompanying this amendment but, in short, I bring the amendment to acknowledge the considerable community investment made by the parishioners of St. Mary in preparing its Village Plan and to preserve the detail of it. I acknowledge that much of the plan has been realised but still feel the plan is a good foundation on which to build in future. This amendment does not preclude a revised plan being adopted by the Parish as provided for elsewhere in the Plan should that become appropriate in time. I thank the Minister for accepting it. I move the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does anyone wish to say anything on the amendment? Very well. All those in favour of adopting the amendment, kindly show? All those against? The amendment is adopted.

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-ninth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(39)) The Bailiff :

The next amendment then is Amendment 39 lodged by the Minister himself. It appears to be fairly long and so, with Members' permission, we will take it as read. It relates to page 24 of the Plan. Minister, I invite you to propose your amendment.

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:

This is a simple amendment but I think an important one. The amendment was suggested to me by a former Member of this Assembly, former Senator Pierre Horsfall, C.B.E. This is a simple amendment but I think it is an important one. It serves to set out at the start of the Plan the legal basis under which the Plan is prepared. It also presents the legal purpose that the Plan is striving to uphold and deliver. While Members can look at the relevant parts of the Planning and Building Law themselves, I think it is important and helpful to include an explicit reference to this at the start of the Plan. It is of value not only to decision-makers but also to applicants and anyone else who has an interest in the development in Jersey. I propose the amendment.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

2. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

May I make an observation, Sir? It is not so much to do with the amendment itself. It is to do with the process. Now, I could not be here last night because I had a prior engagement in the form of a Parish surgery although I was listening on the radio when we decided to take these amendments. What is striking from the comment just made by the Senator is that and I do not comment on the rights and wrongs of the suggestion of a former Member of the States but it seems that we are in a strange position when if a Member wanted to bring forward a suggestion to the Island Plan within a week before it is lodged, that would not be possible but yet a former Member of the States, who is not a Member of this Assembly, can just have a word in the Minister's ear and essentially bring an amendment which I or my colleagues would not be able to do. It was just an observation.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? Very well. Do you wish to reply, Minister?

3. Senator F.E. Cohen:

Had any States Member had a particular point they wished to raise that was of particular relevance and was outside the time periods of lodging amendments, I would have been more than happy to lodge the amendment on their behalf and I made that very clear. I did everything I possibly could to make my team at Planning and Environment available to Members. They did this in an atmosphere of absolute confidentiality. I had no idea of the work that was going on and I think I have done all I possibly can to try and facilitate the opportunity for Members to lodge amendments. [Approbation]

The Bailiff :

Very well. All those in favour of adopting Amendment 39, kindly show? Those against? The amendment is adopted.

4. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(32)) The Bailiff :

We come next to Amendment 32 lodged by Deputy De Sousa, which is a short one. I will therefore ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Thirty-second amendment, page 2. After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words "except that in the Island Plan Strategic Policy Framework (page 33) relating to the Town of St. Helier, at the end of paragraph 2.22, after the words "its public realm and infrastructure." insert the words "In particular, it is imperative that to create an acceptable urban living environment in the Town, adequate provision of good quality and accessible public open space must be planned for and made."

[10:30]

The Bailiff :

Now, Minister, what approach do you propose to adopt on this one? Senator F.E. Cohen:

I propose to accept this excellent amendment.

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

I will be brief as always. I thank the Minister for accepting this amendment and it is a straightforward and fundamental amendment to the quality of residents of town. There is a constant increase in the number of buildings and the number of people living in town and therefore residents need to have amenity space to cope with that. So it is just a quality of life and I hope Members will support it.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

2. The Deputy of St. Mary :

I am very glad that this amendment comes so early in the Plan because it is about the quality of life in our capital and it brings it to centre stage and I think that is so important. I do hope for 2 things. One is that in this debate, we treat the Island as one Island and that we really do try to do the best for everyone. The other is that I hope this will go through unanimously on that basis because, as a country Deputy , I could be asked why would I want to even comment on this particular amendment but it is absolutely vital. When I go home, I walk home or I cycle home or I go home by bus or whatever or drive home sometimes and I go through the most glorious countryside in the world. It really is a privilege and a treat and the Minister rightly said at the beginning of this debate that the countryside is sacrosanct. With that privilege goes a responsibility, for instance, to approve this amendment unanimously because people in town deserve a little slice of that glorious access to open space. Just a couple of points about responsibility because it will come up later in the debate here and there again and again. If we live in the countryside, as my constituents do, and enjoy that, then there has to be a question mark - and it will come up in many amendments - about the driving- into-town culture. We have a Sustainable Transport Policy which says reduce that by 15 per cent. I would go further. I would say it should be more. Why should people in the country who enjoy that wonderful countryside then proceed all en masse 9.00 a.m. in the morning, or 8.30 a.m., to go into town and pollute the lives of others in the same Island? So that is one aspect of this holistic approach, which I hope we are going to adopt. The other is that in the other direction, people in the town, a quarter of whom do not have a car, we have to make it possible for them to see the glorious coastline, which we are going to talk about later, and to see the wonderful countryside and that has implications for public transport. It has implications for the way we look at our Island being one Island. So I do urge Members to support this amendment. I think it is a really important amendment. It lays down a marker. It says the quality of life in our urban areas is centre stage. The Minister agrees with that I know but it is important to bring it to the foreground.

3. Deputy J.A. Martin:

Just briefly, it is very good the Minister accepted this fluffy no disrespect to Deputy De Sousa, it is a very fluffy easy amendment to accept. My question to the Minister is when will he define the words "adequate provision": "adequate" because in the last Island Plan, the years 2002 to 2006, St. Helier took 50.1 per cent of all housing and all the other Parishes never added up and he has already said that it is already coming to St. Helier . Where are we going to get the housing and the adequate open space? Very easy to accept. The Minister for Planning and Environment has no idea how he is going to achieve it.

4. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Deputy Martin has really made the point about adequate. However, I would just like to say that it is a very commonsense addition to the Senator Cohen Memorial Plan and I absolutely endorse and praise his acceptance of it and hope all Members do.

5. Senator T.J. Le Main:

Yes, I am going to support this very much and I would like the Minister or the future Ministers in deliberating on developing St. Helier and the provision of good quality public open spaces and the quality of life is this problem of commercials and where they park around the town areas. I would rather hope that the Minister, when deliberating, as I say, on developments, that in the background there is a thought or some provision in the town areas for wide-van parking instead of these wide vans parking in all the streets of St. Helier , particularly blotting the lives of many people that are now living in those streets. I would hope that this is something perhaps that, as I say, the Minister would seriously consider with his planners.

6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I think this is an essential safeguard, given that the Minister has already talked about minimum densities. I very much fear that what we are going to do is pile development into St. Helier and the urban areas. It is going to be a case of pile them high, build them cheap. I urge all 11 representatives, particularly of St. Helier , to pay careful attention to the developments as they come forward as a result of this Plan to pay attention to that valuable essential provision of open and amenity  space  to  ensure  that  living  in  town  does  not  become  so  unpleasant  as  to  become unbearable.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Now, does any other Member wish to speak? Very well, I call upon the Deputy to reply.

7. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:

I thank all those Members that have spoken in support and I hope those that have not will support this amendment as well. As Deputy Southern has just said, with the density that we are going to get in town, residents of town need to have adequate - and how do we term "adequate" - amenity space. I commend the amendment and I ask for the appel, please.

The Bailiff :

Very well. The appel is called for, then, in relation to the amendment. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

5. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(3)) The Bailiff :

Then we come next to Amendment 3 lodged by Deputy Fox and I will ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Greffier of the States:

Third amendment, page 2. After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words "except that in policy GD1, General development considerations (on pages 54-55), paragraph 3.d, after the words "in accordance with the principles of safety by design," insert the words "by way of a crime  impact statement  if required,";  and  in  Policy GD7 Design quality (on pages 66-67), paragraph 7, after the words "in accord with the principles of safety by design," insert the words "by way of a crime impact statement if required."

The Bailiff :

Yes, Minister, are you going to accept this amendment? Senator F.E. Cohen:

I enthusiastically accept this.

The Bailiff :

This one is accepted. Very well, Deputy .

1. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

This is just a very short tidying-up really of the original general proposals of safety by design and incorporates this specific detail by way of crime impact statements, which will be included in a separate supplementary planning guidance. Basically, it covers areas that planners will have an added tool in their toolbox for times when they need to consider further preventative measures in relation to  crime  such as crime  and disorder,  appropriate  lighting and design  solutions when involved in things like crime analysis, et cetera. So it is an improvement on the quality of life and this is purely just to give that extra little bit of work into the wording to enable this to happen. I do not think I need to say any more.

The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

2. Senator B.E. Shenton:

I would just like to know how much these crime impact statements will cost and who prepares them. It says that there are no financial implications so does whoever prepare them work for nothing? When it says "if required", who decides if it is required and ultimately who pays for the crime impact statement?

3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I want to welcome this amendment and thank Deputy Fox very much for his work in this area. This is a very important aspect of planning, which is very often overlooked in the need to design-out crime, the need through good planning design to decrease the likelihood of crime taking place.

Now, this particular amendment, of course, adds to the existing words by clearly putting in the document the fact that there needs to be consideration as to whether or not there needs to be a crime impact statement. That, I believe - I hope I am not going to answer in a different way to Deputy Fox - will be produced, of course, by the States of Jersey Police Officer who specialises in this area, I believe, but Deputy Fox will answer in more detail on that.

4. Deputy M. Tadier :

First of all, to echo the comment of Senator Shenton. If required, how will it be determined if, in fact, something is required, not just simply who will be determining that but how will it be judged necessary if this is required? Without wanting to sound pedantic, the first few words of the amendment "by way of a crime impact statement"; "by way" seems to suggest that if the crime impact statement is not required, then, clearly, because we are saying any safety by design principles should be included but only by way of a crime impact statement, if the crime impact statement is not required, then, presumably, if we have the words "by way" there, then we cannot have any principles of safety by design included because they can only be done by way of a crime impact statement. So maybe the Attorney General could comment on that. It seems to me that perhaps the words are not necessarily the ones they should be.

5. The Deputy of St. Mary :

A couple of things. One is to endorse what Senator Shenton said. I worry quite a bit throughout this Plan about the resources question. The Minister goes: "Yes, yes, yes, I accept this, I accept that", which one can understand. He is faced with umpteen 80 amendments or something, now it is 100, I think, and it is nice to say yes but I do worry when he has told Scrutiny that he can reduce the budget of his department by 10 per cent, no problem. Well, who is going to do all these different tasks? So I echo that point and I will probably be saying that again in future as well. The second question is about the specific thing about the crime impact statement. I do worry when I hear that and I want the proposer to assure us that wider views are taken into account. The image that comes to my head when I hear this kind of talk I fully endorse principles of safety by design, that is fine. You could apply that to the design of the kitchen as well as to the design of the layout and so on. But the image that comes to my mind is Soweto where it was all designed on a grid. It was designed on a grid so that people could be shot easier, controlled more easily. Now, I am not saying that that is what Deputy Fox is suggesting [Aside] [Laughter] .. I am not at all suggesting that. [Interruption] I was not suggesting either that we shoot people whose mobile phones go off but, no, just when I hear crime impact statements and this emphasis on crime as opposed to a good environment that people are happy in and so they become the sort of people who do not need crime. I am just looking at the wider picture and I hope the Deputy can comment on how this fits into a wider view of what we are trying to do when we build accommodation.

The Bailiff :

Mr. Attorney, did you want to deal with Deputy Tadier 's query? [10:45]

The Attorney General:

Yes, Sir, I am happy to do so. I would take the addition of the words not as limiting the provision of consideration of prevention of crime to the particular statement or the particular report but rather providing an additional mechanism. The use of the words "as required" I think qualifies the "by means of". Clearly, one can take the view that one is not required and one can assess the situation by a different means.

6. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Just briefly. This House is committed to reducing the amount of red tape that we impose on those that we represent. This is simply red tape. It is unnecessary. It is a principle that planners will adopt anyway to ensure that design is appropriate and all aspects of the design are considered when determining an application. It is simply red tape, cost to industry, cost to householders, cost to the people of Jersey we represent and is unnecessary.

7. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Just very briefly. Following the last speaker, I tend to disagree. It may be considered red tape but if we look at design faults in the U.K. Okay, I know we are not proposing things like Broadwater Farm in the U.K. but absolute warrens are ideal for criminals to escape and so on. I think it is sensible that we take into account what Deputy Fox is looking at. When we are looking at a development, we should look at all aspects of development. It is not red tape.

8. Deputy T.M. Pitman:

To follow on from Deputy Higgins, we often laugh about Deputy Fox telling us about his former life but he has got a lot of expertise in that area and I think what he is suggesting is something that is really common sense and would give an extra guarantee that what we do in the future is going to be of the best quality possible. So like Deputy Higgins, I would urge Members to support it.

9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

I wonder if the proposer could just elaborate on who he expects would be producing the crime impact statement and also to confirm that this would encompass things such as vandalism, which we often see on buildings.

10. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I am going to support Deputy Fox because over the years there has been certainly a lack of planning in some of the housing estates and I can recollect well, particularly at Le Clos Gosset and Les Cinq Chênes at Five Oaks, where there were huge rat runs in areas causing immense problems to residents and what have you. Had there been some proper planning on what is being proposed today, then a lot of these problems would not have taken place. So I think that the policy, in developments, of planning in regard to crime and disturbances and nuisances by planning criteria I think should be maintained and I think that Deputy Fox is on the right lines.