States Meeting Transcript - 22/06/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 22nd JUNE 2011

QUESTIONS......................................................................................5

1. Urgent Oral Question.....................................................................5

1.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the ordering of railings for the St. Helier Town Park.................5 Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services):5

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:............................................................5
2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:......................................................6
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:......................................................6
4. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:............................................................6
5. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:......................................................6
6. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:..................................................7
7. The Connétable of St. Helier:............................................................7 Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:................................................................7

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption................................................................8

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37))..................................................................................8

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................8

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................9
2. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................10
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................10

4. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel): ..............11
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................11
6. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................11
7. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................12
8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................12

9. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................13
10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................13
11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier:...............................................14
12. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................16
13. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................17
14. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................18
15. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................18
16. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................19
17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................19

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(47))................................................................................23

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................23

2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................24
3. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................26
4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................26
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................27
6. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................29
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................29
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................30
9. Deputy M.R.Higgins:..................................................................30
10. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................30
11. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................31

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 10...............................................................34

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................34
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................34

4. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): sixth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(6))......35

2.4.1 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................35

5. Island Plan 2011: Approval (P.48/2011): sixth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(6)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(6) Amd.).................................................35

2.5.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................35

6. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): sixth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(6)) - as amended..................................................................................36

1. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................36
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................36

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

2.7.1 Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................38

8. Island Plan 2011: Approval (P.48/2011): thirteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(13)) ...........................................................................................38

1. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................39
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................39
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................39
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................39
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................39
6. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................40
7. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................40
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................41

9. Island Plan 2011: Approval (P.48/2011): forty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(48))................................................................................42

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................43
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................43
3. The Connétable of St. Saviour:.........................................................44

4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................44

10. Island Plan 2011: Approval (P.48/2011): thirty-third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(33))................................................................................44

1. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................44
2. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................44

3. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................45
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................45
5. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................45
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................45
7. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................46
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................46
9. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................48
10. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..........................................................50
11. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................50
12. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:................................................51
13. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:.............................................................52

11. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37))................................................................................53

2.11.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................54

12. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 12...............................................................55

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................55
2. Senator P.F. Routier:................................................................55
3. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley.........................................................55
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................55

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................57

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................58

13. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20))58

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................58
2. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................62
3. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................63
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................63
5. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................64
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................64
7. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................64
8. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................65
9. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................65
10. Deputy G.P. Southern :.............................................................65
11. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................66
12. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:.............................................................66 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................66
13. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................67

14. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraphs 13 and 14......................................................68

2.14.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................68

15. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): tenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(10))....69

1. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................69
2. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:....................................................72
3. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................74
4. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................75
5. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................77

6. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................77
7. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................78
8. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................80
9. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................81
10. Deputy T.M.Pitman:..............................................................81
11. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................81
12. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:.......................................................83
13. The Deputy of St. Peter:............................................................84
14. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:..............................................85
15. The Deputy of St. Mary:...........................................................85
16. Deputy J.A. Martin:................................................................86
17. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................87
18. Deputy S.Power:..................................................................88
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:...................................................................89
20. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:..............................................90
21. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ....................................................91

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

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. QUESTIONS

1. Urgent Oral Question

The Bailiff :

Now before we begin there are 2 matters. First of all, Deputy Charles Parkinson, the Treasury and Resources Minister for Guernsey is in the gallery visiting Jersey today and I am sure Members would like to welcome him. [Approbation] Secondly, I have given leave for an urgent question to be asked by the Connétable of St. Helier. It seems to me it would be convenient to do that at this stage before we resume debate upon the Island Plan. So, Connétable , would you like to ask your question?

1.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier of the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding the ordering of railings for the St. Helier Town Park.

Will the Minister agree to place on hold the ordering of railings for the Millennium Town Park until the outcome of the debate on the proposition of Deputy De Sousa Millennium Town Park: railings P.117/2011 is known?

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade (The Minister for Transport and Technical

Services):

I would first like to start this answer by saying that the Transport and Technical Services Department has been charged to deliver the Millennium Town Park and its name in itself indicates that the project is long overdue, as all Members will know. We are forging ahead with this project and have undertaken it in a proper way. We have consulted with numerous people and the feedback has been significant. We have charged a professional designer to design the park and the park designs have been well circulated. Subsequently, there has been a petition with 400 signatories asking for railings. We have had numerous meetings with the Friends of the Town Park, we have had numerous meetings with politicians of the area and the result is that there have been several changes of mind in that the roads surrounding the park were to be closed initially and are now to be opened. This has cast a different set of circumstances on the project and thrown in some safety issues, which has resulted in the requirement for railings from the Planning Department. Having said that, the area under contention, as I understand it, is the area at the Talman end, which is the Bath Street or David Place end of the site. My suggestion is that I would rather not put on hold the whole of the railing order because I understand that the Gas Place end is not contentious. I would rather be given leave by the House to proceed with those and discuss the Talman end upon completion of the road improvements, which will take place towards the end of the year. The granite work on the road will incur the necessity to close the roads for a period of time and I think at that point it will be the period best judged whether to have the low railings at the Talman end. So I would respond to the question directly by saying I would rather not hold the ordinance in its entirety because that will then prolong the delivery of the town park even further than it is already and I do not think it will serve any material purpose. I am happy to discuss the situation further with Deputy De Sousa by way of a comment later on or by way of informal meetings so that all parties can be satisfied.

1. The Connétable of St. Helier :

I am grateful to the Minister for his concession and that is indeed of comfort to us. Could he further clarify or confirm that, while we appreciate the need to get this job done after 12 years of waiting, it is important that it should not be rushed. Phrases have been used at officer level such as "sacrificial turf", in other words, that the park may be hurried into a state of completion for its grand opening with work that will then be undone after the opening. That, I think, would be of real

concern to ratepayers and taxpayers and I would ask him to confirm that the job will not be rushed and if he needs more time to get it finished, he will delay the opening by a matter of weeks or possibly months.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

There are 2 issues there which I would like to answer: one is in terms of sacrificial turf. I think at any opening ceremony if there is to be one, and I am sure there ought to be as we have waited so long for it, there will be, inevitably, initial damage. I think in terms of sacrificial areas it does need to be accounted for and dealt with. In terms of delay, delay to me means cost and I am very conscious of the tightness of the budget on the town park. So while I take the Connétable 's point and would not wish the project to be rushed, I do not want it to cost any more.

2. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

I thank the Minister for his reply this morning. [Interruption] I just wonder if the Minister would clarify.. and I will meet with the Minister to discuss a way forward and if it is satisfactory then I will withdraw the proposition that is in place. I just wonder if he could categorically assure the Assembly and members of the public that he is 100 per cent sure that no child will ever be impaled on these railings because the designs that we have seen are really not very good.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

I think it is unreasonable for anyone to expect me to give a 100 per cent assurance but in terms of design of the railings, I would like to think that they will be put in such a position that that will not arise. I have to say the primary reason - or one of the reasons - for the low railings around the Talman end of the park was to allow the formation of hedging which clearly takes some time. I suspect that after 2 or 3 years the hedging will subsume the railings and they will in time disappear completely.

3. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Just widening the question but still with the Town Park. On Monday night we were surprised to hear that there was to be no changing place toilets in the park, which was part of the original plan. Since then, I am pleased to say, the Minister has confirmed to me there will be a changing place toilet, that is, a toilet for disabled people who need to have greater facilities than just wheelchair access. I wonder if the Minister would be good enough to confirm to the Assembly that there will be a ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry, this is an urgent question which was given specifically in relation to the question of railings, so I think we must confine ourselves to the urgent matter. [Laughter] I know the toilet can sometimes be a matter of urgency but .. Deputy Fox.

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

Will the Minister give the assurance of re-approaching the States of Jersey Police with regards to design against crime in relation to these railings for the benefit of the security and safety of the people that will be living in and using the park? If there is any change, obviously. Thank you.

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Yes, the department is in contact with the States of Jersey Police with regard to this and appreciate their input and hopefully that will be of benefit to all concerned. I would quickly just add that the department are happy to concede to Deputy Green's request in that design.

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

Following on from what the Constable said, if the railings are going to be subsumed in a hedge, why go through all the expense of purchasing expensive railings, installing them and so on? Why can temporary railings not be put in until the hedge has been reinstated?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

While I take the Deputy 's point, and I am all keen for saving funds, I think it is important to ensure that there is a permanent safety barrier should the roads remain open, which is the crucial point. In terms of conscious conscience, if you like, it is difficult to accept an open area, and that could be caused by temporary railings, should the roads be opened, of having the risk of children running out into an open road. That really is of quite grave concern to me.

[9:45]

6. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

Could the Minister just confirm that a key consideration in whether to have railings or not is whether that road on the north side of the park is open in the normal sense or is basically "residents only" or very restricted in access? Is that a key consideration in the future discussions?

The Connétable of St. Brelade : Yes, it is.

7. The Connétable of St. Helier :

Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his approach on this in agreeing that the Talman end of the park will not have these railings ordered until the debate. Could he further confirm that the Millennium Town Park support group, who have worked tirelessly for over a dozen years and whose signatures amount to far more than 400, will be fully involved in the stages leading up to the opening on 16th October?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

Absolutely. They are an essential part of the whole process of creating the town park. The Bailiff :

Very well, that concludes the urgent question. Then before we resume debate the Greffier has received notification from Deputy Power that he proposes to withdraw the 27th amendment. Deputy Power just said: "All Members can be aware of the position." Can you confirm to Members whether that is the case?

Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Yes, Sir, I did submit to you this morning the reason for that and if I am allowed read it, it would be less than 2 minutes.

The Bailiff :

Yes, by all means speak for a moment about the reason. Deputy S. Power:

I was in London yesterday at the Houses of Parliament during a prayer breakfast. During the breakfast there was a flurry of emails between various parties, the Jersey Construction Council and the Association of Jersey Architects. I do not know whether there was any sort of divine or political intervention as a result of this but I do believe that Senator Cohen has now agreed with the J.C.C. (Jersey Construction Council) and the Association of Jersey Architects a number of significant compromises that suggest to me that I am not alone, but I am better negotiating and working better with the Senator to effect a result on the troublesome area of affordable and social housing. It was also made clear to me and to Deputy Le Claire that the Jersey Construction Council and the Association of Jersey Architects had initially agreed last weekend to support the rally in the

Royal Square today and yesterday seemed to change their mind completely and withdraw support. This is regretted but it leaves me and Deputy Le Claire with the decision now as to whether to go ahead or cancel the rally. Therefore, it seems, that without large scale support from the construction industry that the rally may not be that effective. Accordingly, I am withdrawing Amendment 27 because I now believe it is not in the best interests of States Members or indeed this Assembly to spend possibly hours debating an amendment when the Minister, with myself, Deputy Le Claire and Deputy Le Fondré, are possibly close to reaching a compromise solution. I do hope that the Minister will at some time this morning confirm this. On the complex and vexatious area of affordable housing and social housing, I do say that the Senator has my trust. Finally, Deputy Le Claire and I will be in the Royal Square at lunchtime to meet those that may turn up. Thank you.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37))

The Bailiff :

Very well, so that amendment is withdrawn. Then we return therefore to the Order Paper and the next matter is the 37th amendment, paragraph 2 lodged by Deputy Le Fondré. That is a long amendment and with Members' permission we will take it as read and therefore before inviting Deputy Le Fondré to propose it, Minister, can you indicate whether you will be accepting any of it?

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

I will be accepting parts (a), (c) and (e) and rejecting parts (b), (d) and (f). Thank you. The Bailiff :

Very well, accepting (a), (c) and (e) and rejecting the others. Deputy Le Fondré.

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

As we have just heard, the Minister is accepting (a), (c) and (e) which is basically all to do with internal space standards. The reason I brought this amendment is irrespective of whether one is a proponent of apartment living or not and the issues that surround it. In my view, there are a lot of apartments being constructed on this Island. What I was intending in respect of this amendment is that if one wants to make sure that such apartments are of an appropriate quality and not built to the lowest common denominator there are 2 key aspects of spatial standards and noise. That is, noise transmitted from one flat to another, whether it be via the ceilings or walls, or whether the external noise generated from one flat can significantly disturb another, perhaps due to hard materials magnifying - what I will call the echo impact, as it were - noise generated in the estate. Appendix A in the Island Plan does refer to the intention to produce a Supplementary Planning Guidance on noise but that could be a different type of noise. The reason I have raised this is that we seem to argue that from time to time .. and we are following U.K. (United Kingdom) standards for whichever ones. Then we get stories that in development X they put in cut-down furniture to make it look bigger and then when individuals buy a flat and try to move their own furniture into it, they suddenly find it does not fit. That is why I welcomed the Minister's previous decision to increase the then minimum by 10 per cent, however, we still seem to get comments and that is why I wanted to raise the emphasis. But similarly that is why I wanted to talk about noise; I suppose that is a statement in itself. I am not a technical person in planning terms and it appears to me that the argument against supporting parts (b), (d) and (f) is that they should be considered under planning bye-laws even though the comment does begin - that is in the large A3 sheets - that: " Deputy Le Fondré is right to be concerned about standards of sound insulation." As Members we do not get the opportunity to amend building bye-laws very often and in raising this I wanted to draw emphasis to it so it could be considered in the round. We could argue that there is a tension between bye-laws and planning stipulations. One would presumably expect the energy efficiency

or carbon efficiency, depending on what you want to call it, of a building is laid down in bye-laws. But if at the planning level, planning decision might require, say, particular types of roof style or even - I would hope not - that solar panels are put on the north side rather than the south side of the roof, all that sort of stuff, if that becomes the case, one is automatically making it harder later on to produce a more energy-efficient building which I would understand will come down to bye-laws. In other words, there needs to be a holistic approach rather than just pigeon-holing everything. There are 2 other comments in the reasons for not supporting this second part to my amendment, if you like, which I have a couple of issues with. Firstly, it says that the department has no record of complaints. Well the trouble is, that does not necessarily mean there is not a problem. It may be that there is just a general apathy towards making complaint, that people only find out that there is a problem once they have bought and moved in. To complain obviously takes more time and hassle and plus it might even impact on the value of their property, which they probably do not want to do. Bear in mind, this is purely to consider whether there should be any improvements. It does not say there should be, it is saying that as part of the general exercise one is doing on certain matters, sound should be a factor that is also reviewed. In 1.7 of the Island Plan it refers to applicants being required to submit more detailed information on a whole raft of issues, including noise levels and standards. Proposal 1 talks about the Minister issuing supplementary planning guidance to complement that which already exists. Paragraph 4.61 in section 4 and those following it leading up to Proposal 10 in the Island Plan then talks about, for example, the number of commercial occupants relocating to the new financial and business centre to be created in the Esplanade Quarter and the necessity to consider alternative appropriate uses such as conversion to residential. It then talks about issues such as sustainability, energy efficiency, amenity space, and indicates that the Minister is looking at measures to encourage regeneration in town and to quote Proposal 10: "To assist with the regeneration of St. Helier." Now as far as I am concerned, the quality of accommodation that results from these proposals is important. I am glad that the Minister has accepted part of the amendment and I would ask Members to consider whether they consider that the other issue I have raised is really so far out of kilter that it should not be reviewed at the same time. That is all I am asking for. I would consider that surely this would be an S.P.G. (Supplementary Planning Guidance) that complements that which already exists, and I do ask Members whether they would support the whole of the amendment. It is a fairly short matter.

Thank you. The Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak? Deputy Trevor Pitman.

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

I am always pleased to support Deputy Le Fondré especially since he has come back from the dark side. [Members: Oh!] The sound issue that the Deputy raises is something that is very important. I will not name the development in question but I had a couple who went to see a place with the lady's father and they were trying to talk to the sales person and they were very annoyed by this what we might call "wallpaper music" being played very loudly in the background and eventually asked if it could be turned down because they said: "It is stopping us hearing what you are saying about the development." Because when they did very reluctantly turn it down, the noise was all just bashing and crashing about. It was as if you were on just the other side of what they described as being a sheet of cardboard. I think anything like this is going to help because we do need to have some integrity with people who are going to develop for us. It is very misleading and very dishonest that you are not just going to buy a property and then find out that the furniture has been cut down for little people - I was not looking at the Minister for Planning and Environment - but that also you have to go about your whole daily and nightly existence with a whisper. So I am going to support Deputy Le Fondré fully on this. I think it is an important issue which is all too easy to overlook in the haste to get things developed. I welcome this and I would urge all Members to support him.

2. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Again, I will be supporting Deputy Le Fondré on this. One of my concerns is that St. Helier is going to become the main destination for most housing under this Island Plan and high density housing means that people are going to be thrust closer together and we are going to get more disputes between neighbours, and noise is going to be one of the main ones because I am absolutely amazed since I have been in the States the number of complaints I have had on this matter. I am very concerned about what appears to be buck-passing between the Health Protection Unit and the police and trying to get someone to take action on some of these complaints. So I would rather that we deal with these matters at the planning and building stage then try to deal with these disputes which take an awful long time to resolve afterwards. I would also echo what the Deputy is saying about floor space and about what is definitely mis-selling in the sense of developers showing show flats which have this purpose-built bedroom furniture. I went round one looking at it and there were no cupboards for people to store in. When I looked at the floor area, it included the balcony as part of the floor space for the flat. So, I think we have got a problem with some developers and we need to deal with these things now. As we are dealing with the Island Plan, let us get it right the first time. I will support the amendment.

3. Senator A. Breckon:

I will definitely support this for a number of reasons. The noise pollution is an issue in new and old. Some of the older places have wooden floorboards and no insulation between them and I have known cases before the Rent Control Tribunal where it has been an issue. It is an issue as well, not just for the people who live there, but for neighbours. What you have is you have the noise of TVs, bathrooms, whatever it is, people's living noise that are polluting their neighbours. I think anything that increases the standard by the planning process has got to be a good thing to do. It is sensible and some places are better built and purpose built than others appear to be but when people move in they find out that they are not. The same applies to space. I have seen some big developments of flats but when you look at that of course with the planning process, if you can put another 30 flats on the development and cut the space down, then it will generate an extra £10 million or more. So obviously there is a reason for a developer or an owner or whoever it may be to put more flats on there. I have seen that happen on a number of occasions where even in a garage a developer mocked-up what the flat would look like and people went: "Oh, these are wonderful" and when they built them they were not like that at all and those were supposed to be for people with some mobility problems and special needs. What happened was, about another 30 apartments went on the development but again that is the £10 million. The other thing that has happened, some developers have been very creative in getting lounges into bedrooms into kitchens. It all seems to sort of come together as the living area combined. Add that to poor standards of insulation with the neighbours and somebody, when they move in, if they move in at 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon, it seems okay, but by 10.00 p.m. at night they realise that there are lots of other people living around them making a noise, which they had not bargained for; they had not bargained for everything. So, I think, I am not sure why the Minister for Planning and Environment is not accepting all of this because it is an improvement and it is, if you like, us as Government through the planning process giving people who are buying and spending terrific amounts of money some sort of quality

assurance and quality guarantee. I welcome this and I hope the space thing will be an issue and the noise thing will be an issue because people do not always realise it, and as others have mentioned, some of this furniture is purpose-built.

[10:00]

I know of one case where a couple paid a deposit, an option to buy, and when they saw it the chap was fairly tall and he could not really get in the bedroom unless he laid diagonally, so that is really how it was, and that might sound daft but it is true. That was the reason why the lawyers were not very keen because the contract had been signed with guarantees. They did get their money back but that did not solve the problem of where they were going to live. So I hope Members will

support this and there are examples out there, and other Members have quoted it for the Minister for Planning and Environment, but for me this is something that he should be accepting. Thank you.

4. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John (Chairman, Environment Scrutiny Panel):

Over my time in 2 Parishes as a Centenier and also in my time as a Deputy in this House which goes back to 1994, I have had umpteen complaints about noise from neighbours. Generally they can be 2 super families, but one family continue to have a radio or a gramophone, whatever you call these things nowadays [Laughter] that plays bass that vibrates through the building, so much so I have had to deal with people who have moved house because of the noise coming from their neighbour's house. No matter how many requests those people make because they are semi- detached or town-type houses or flats, another member of the family will walk in who has not been involved in the original conversation and turns up the music. It is one of the biggest problems I would say I have had over a period of 40-odd years in office in one capacity or another and noise is one that comes through, probably more than any. As I say, all parties are super but for some reason or another; it may be somebody pulls a flush at 3.00 a.m. and it is a building that has been converted from a house into a number of units and they hear the water running through, not only from the flush but also from the header tank up in the loft when the tank is filling. This goes on week in, week out and people's nerves get frayed. Whatever can be done within the Planning Department to make life easier for people living cheek by jowl as is happening now, and is going to happen probably more in the future, to make people's life that much more comfortable, working closer together, I think this is an amendment that I hope the Minister will accept. Thank you.

5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:

The Minister says this is not a matter for the Island Plan. Well the Island Plan specifies so much with regard to lifestyle that I would think inclusion of this is totally sensible. We do have a problem with apartments and the current fashion for wood or laminate floors does increase the probability of noise from the flat above. It is the clatter of high-heel shoes and then somebody kicks off one shoe and you are sitting there waiting for the other shoe to drop. [Laughter] It is funny once perhaps but if it goes on continuously then it is a problem. There is also the lateral problem; Deputy Pitman has mentioned wallpaper music, and the Deputy of St. John has mentioned bathroom ablutions and so on. I wish the standards to be as good as those of my New York apartment. [Members: Oh!] Yes. [Laughter] It was possible to have a gathering of students, about 30 in a single-bedroom apartment which was fairly noisy but none of our noise, which was substantial, could be detected either from the flat above or the apartment below or the ones on either side and that was a building built in 1860. Surely with modern materials we can achieve good standards. Also there have been a number of complaints or comments on the design of apartments. I do wish our architects could look at some of the American designs which have more than adequate storage space. They put the cabinets in the bathroom. We were shown some flats by a particular developer when I was first elected and I will confirm what other Deputies have said that there was no storage space, there was not even a cupboard in the bathroom. I mean, really. I support Deputy Le Fondré's amendments and I hope the Minister will think again and accept them.

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

Not only do I support Deputy Le Fondré but I thank him for bringing this proposition. I am absolutely amazed to hear that the Minister for Planning and Environment does not consider that this is a problem or thinks it is a minor problem. It is the most common problem and certainly living in town I was going to say: "I wonder what planet he lives on?" but I know what Parish he lives in. Maybe he does not have noisy neighbours out in St. John but I know plenty of people who do have noisy neighbours and they live apparently cheek to jowl and it is the most common complaint. Perhaps I should have amended the amendment to suggest that every time I get a complaint.. and these are very difficult to resolve. Ask the police; ask anybody. They are very

difficult to resolve as to who is to blame and what level of noise is acceptable and what is not. I think my future tactic when somebody phones me up and complains about a noisy neighbour will be to phone Senator Cohen and say: "You deal with it. You left this out of the Island Plan; it is your fault." So at 2.00 a.m. I will have a little chat to - it will be ex-Senator by then - Mr. Cohen in St. John and say: "Come and sort this noisy neighbour dispute, will you? Thanks a lot. There is a good chap." Thank you.

7. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

There are a couple of issues here. One is that standards always rise. In a few years' time, people will be looking for better standards of living and better standards of comfort than is acceptable now. I think when we are looking at design and the way buildings are constructed, we need to look ahead and make provision for this. Now you cannot increase the size of a building once it is built. Your rules will be governed by the area that you have in total. So I think we need to make provision, as they are saying now, for increasing the size. That is fine. But for sound insulation you have a problem with high frequency and low frequency sound. Some, I believe it is high frequency, you can help by putting in insulation once the building is built but low frequency is very difficult because of the way the building is constructed. That has to be taken care of at the time of design. We need to look at this right from the beginning to make sure we get it right. The downside to all of this is that there is a cost. All the time we are worrying about the cost of providing homes, we have to realise that if we want higher standards they will cost more. But it costs an awful lot less to do it at the design stage and build stage than it does at a later stage when we have it wrong. Let us get it right now.

8. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

I follow on from the Constable of St. Saviour and I will use the word again "town-cramming" and I will be again told by the Minister for Planning and Environment that it is not because the designs are already going to be 10 per cent larger than they are now. Everybody has described the very small apartments where you need purpose-built furniture, so 10 per cent larger than that is not a lot. Now why is the Minister for Planning and Environment not accepting this? The Constable of St. Saviour put his finger on it exactly: money. It is going to cost money to soundproof these very high-density apartments. The Minister for Planning and Environment is shaking his head. Well, I am probably not as gullible as Deputy Power, and I have been here before in 2002 when I had assurances from Ministers for Planning and Environment who were leaving and have left and nothing ever got done. This needs to be put in the planning law. If developers do not want it and the architects do not want it, tough. If they are going to build high-density flats, small flats where people are living on top of one another, and they will be the majority in town, this needs to be done. Now the Minister's comments about "there is no evidence and if there is it should be cleared now by the bye-laws" is absolutely naïve because as the Constable of St. Saviour said, once something is built .. oh, it is all right, the Minister for Planning and Environment is more interested in chatting to the Minister for Treasury and Resources, I suppose. As you say, we have assurances from a Minister for Planning and Environment who is not standing next time; he will not be here. We have already heard this morning that there is no longer any upset with the Association of Jersey Architects and the construction industry because the Minister for Planning and Environment has done some sort of deal. Well did they not like this one either? Did they not like the: "You must make sure that your apartments have got a bit of soundproofing" so the Minister for Planning and Environment rolled over again. I am sorry, that is exactly what it is. It is going to cost money but if you want to put these apartments in town .. they are not apartments; that is an American word that Senator Ferguson would like to see. They are small, tiny, cramped flats and I do not care what anybody says, the Minister for Planning and Environment wants to open his eyes and literally go round some of the districts 1, 2 and 3 and see how people live. I am very sorry, this comes down to money and I think the Minister has been pressurised again by the people who stand to make the most money; the same people he absolutely criticised in his opening speech yesterday. I know he is

going to talk after me. He should accept this and I hope he does accept it. It is absolutely simple and it must be done. Thank you.

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

I find the comments of Deputy Martin literally extraordinary. How she can possibly say that I am not supporting this amendment because I am concerned about costs and someone has got at me is quite beyond me. The reality is there is nothing I want more than to deliver the highest quality apartments in the town, that are of high-quality design, of large space and that are soundproofed. I can assure Members that no one has even spoken to me about this issue. The reason that I have taken the view that I have laid out in my comments is because this is the mechanism that has been advised through the department, which is that the building bye-laws deal with the matter of noise. I rather set my own trap by telling Members yesterday that I have recently discovered that I am partially deaf but that is not the reason why I do not support this proposal by Deputy Le Fondré. The reason I do not support this proposal by Deputy Le Fondré is very simple. It is because this matter is better dealt with by building bye-laws. If Deputy Le Fondré has a concern about this matter, I am more than happy to invite him to work with the department and the Director of Building Control, who is a first class officer, to bring forward changes to the building bye-laws quickly, which I am more than happy to implement should there be any inadequacy shown. I am entirely co-operative in this process. I know that the Deputy of St. John has mocked me previously for including every States Member in different projects but the reason for doing that is I believe that if a States Member has expressed an interest in a particular area, it is right and proper that they should be involved in resolving the issue and that they should not just raise the issue and be told by the Minister what to do. I am more than happy to place Deputy Le Fondré in total charge of this area to examine the issue - he has gone to sleep, I think [Laughter] - to identify any problems. It is my view that the building standards that we currently have in place are adequate. I believe that modern buildings are built to high sound insulation standards.

[10:15]

I am very well aware that lots of old buildings are not. It is very difficult to introduce retrospective legislation that requires everyone to suddenly sound-insulate all their buildings. We can control it at the point that a planning application appears, but I am entirely supportive of the principle; it is just the mechanism that Deputy Le Fondré has put forward is not the correct mechanism. It is the right mechanism in relation to space. I am happy, as I have said, to increase the size of apartments. I do not want to see furniture that is too small and having to be specially made for apartments. I have not seen that myself but if it is the case I certainly would not be proud of it. We are delivering now really good accommodation. I went only last week to see the first show house at the dairy site; it is absolutely fabulous. It is a cracking scheme designed by a fabulous classical architect. It is very spacious and I would be more than delighted to live there. The standard of room size, the standard of fittings in the house, the standard of finish, the standard of noise insulation is all exemplary and will put us right at the top of the tree in terms of European construction standards. So if there is any inadequacy in the issue of sound insulation and the building bye-laws, I am more than happy to adapt them and to do it instantly. I am not concerned with the threats of Deputy Southern that he is going to wake me up at 2.00 a.m. because I am usually awake at 2.00 a.m., Deputy , so you are more than welcome to call at any time. [Interruption] As I have said, the Deputy is more than welcome to call me at any time, I always enjoy chatting to him. [Laughter] I must conclude by saying that I am very sorry that I did not know Senator Ferguson in her partying days when she had an apartment in New York, because it all sounds pretty good fun but I am sorry that she found it too noisy when she came back to Jersey. Thank you.

10. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

It is quite difficult to follow the Minister after that little speech but I would point out that possibly the reason his department has no record of complaints about poor sound insulation is the very

reason that he alluded to. It is that a lot of the complaints, certainly in my old job at Citizens Advice, were in connection with old conversions of townhouses and not in new buildings as the Minister has quite correctly pointed out. That is why I think it is important that we do accept Deputy Le Fondré's amendments so that it is absolutely clear to anybody that we are very concerned about sound insulation. I need to remind the Minister that a lot of people live and sleep in what is called "bedsit land" for non-qualified and there is a particular problem there with sound insulation. Of course, a lot of our town workers do shift work and find it very difficult to sleep in the day time because of poor sound insulation. I think it is a very important matter and irrespective of whether it is covered in bye-laws I believe it should be in the Island Plan. Thank you.

11. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

I live in one of probably the noisiest parts of town and certainly in any evening past 9.00 p.m. the windows and doors and outer doors, unless it is extremely inclement weather, the windows, et cetera, are closed. For years we have been talking about complaints in regards to nuisance. I am sure Members will remember that I asked the Minister for Health and Social Services to undertake a study of the nuisance law in a previous Assembly because of the complaints from one vociferous neighbour opposite the Seigneur de St. Ouen 's Manor who impinged upon the ability of St. Ouen's Manor to have wedding fairs to maintain the manor to keep it open for the public. That caused me great concern that one neighbour in St. Ouen can have that effect upon such a generous family who are giving access to their home in so many different ways just to be able to maintain the thing. I think it is really very important that we consider what has not been done in relation to addressing the issues. Today we received an email from one of the States communication officers discussing our health and we are now going to give breathing classes to people with breathing difficulties. That is where our resources are going now: teaching people how to breathe who have pulmonary bronchitis and asthma when there has been nothing done about an air quality strategy or a nuisance strategy in relation to noise. Frequent attempts in the past by myself and in real practice in personal issues about trying to contain noise in and around where I live, and from neighbours who have complained about noise within the town, have been challenging, to say the least. Deputies of St. Helier No. 1 District and I, the Constable, the Honorary Police, various Ministers, including the Minister for Treasury and Resources, and the police officers within the community have been umpteen times to Berkshire Court to try to address some of the noise issues there and the complaints they have. Invariably what we are told is: "Log it in, phone it up, get it into the police station, complain, get it on the log books and then we will try to do something about it." The reality is is that we have an ever-increasing population issue and the more people that come in, the more noise there is going to be. At the moment we are doing all of our numbers based upon 150 heads of household which is our Imagine Jersey figure when in reality what we are seeing is 725 people coming in, above person deaths a year, every year for the last 4 years; 640 people every year on top of the people who are being born, another 250, coming into Jersey every year for the last 5 years. Not 325 - 640 - the last 4 years at 725. I discussed briefly with the Minister yesterday that there is a significant under-estimate in relation to the provision of housing and this particular element as a consequence, and this plan is going to try to address this problem that we have - it is a crisis - by increasing density. I spoke yesterday about the density levels and it is exactly that issue: when you close people together and make them live in confined higher-density neighbourhoods that you have greater noise issues. A plethora of examples could be given by myself about the issues in relation to difficulties in re-designing existing buildings. Not only do we have sites for special interests in town but we also have sites in different ownerships. Within a certain house .. I am sorry the Minister for Planning and Environment is going because I am trying to make an important point. Nevertheless, regardless of anybody paying attention I will say it and it is on Hansard. We recently have been looking - the Planning Applications Panel - at a site in St. Saviour which has been split up into so many different units that the ground floor unit, which they wanted to turn into a bedsit which is now vacant, cannot deliver a shopping unit. We could not approve it because it was too small. So the owners are left there with this house and several different parcels of

ownership with a unit of accommodation we desperately need that they cannot get permission for. It is just sitting there vacant. We are at an impasse because we have allowed these houses to be broken up and sold into share transfer units. Because those houses in themselves may then be, as I said, in sites of special interest, it is very difficult to increase and design those things out. But if we are looking for noise, let me make a noise. Look at this Le Coin site delivering sites on States- owned land. Members may not know of this site just opposite Ann Court where there is a pub - or there was anyway last time I looked - just down the road from the Mayfair Hotel which is going to be designed and built into multiple flats. There is a huge State site been sitting there doing nothing. Now if you look at the town capacity studies that were undertaken by the planners in relation to the need, they talk about the density ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , this is on whether there should be a reference to noise insulation, not on whether there is shortage of housing.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

A consequence of this plan and increasing the density in town is that by doing so the noise issues will be compounded. We are needing to support Deputy Le Fondré because this town's principle is increased density in town. Increased density means more noise. I appreciate that Members may think it is off-track but it is right on the money. It is specifically on the money. Trust me, I live in a noisy part of town and we are ready to start shouting about these things. If you look back through the last several development policies that have come to this Assembly; this is one from 1989. They had to adopt more housing sites because, as with the previous one, they did not get enough in the first time. They say this: "Clearly in a small Island where land is at a premium it is essential to adopt a sensible policy for housing densities to ensure the sites are developed economically and efficiently. Only in this manner can the incursion of buildings into good agricultural land and open countryside be kept to a minimum. It is equally important, however, for the Committee to ensure that higher land-saving densities are not pursued at the expense of the local environment. The actual development densities obtained on each site will depend upon a whole range of factors, including location, physical site characteristics, environmental constraints, environmental noise." Noise is a part of our environment. [Interruption] Thank you. [Laughter] I am speaking like Deputy Le Hérissier today and I intend to carry on. [Members: Oh!] He is my noisy neighbour in St. Saviour: "Mix of house types and sizes and relationship with neighbouring properties." Mix of house types and sizes and relationships with neighbouring properties. Many, many of the opportunities that we are told are going to be delivered by windfall sites and increased densities in this town plan are going to come about to the examination of the reality. The town capacity study which has been done by the planning officers identifies quite clearly that there are significant issues in relation to building these houses in the first place around those constraints and the effects they will have. When you look at things like, for example, the Eagle Tavern site which I objected to and dissented .. I do not often dissent on the Planning Applications Panel. I may not be happy on some decisions but I do not often dissent. I dissented on that decision because they failed an amenities standards and the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) phoned me up said: "What is the story?" and I told them the story. They phoned up the owner: "No, it met all the amenity standards." "Okay, that is the story, then it met all the amenity standards, what is Paul Le Claire on about?" Daft as usual; that is the way they like to portray me. They did not meet the amenity standards and that is why I dissented. It has even been recognised now by, dare I say, the Minister himself. You cannot take an inner goalmouth of a football field and put 3, 4-bedroom houses on it. So we need to start to take care of the people we are cramming - cramming - into town. Cramming into town. There is no other word for it in this increased density. In conclusion I will just give Members a flavour of that cramming which is what it is. Let us look at the Le Coin site at the permissions I have said.

The latest proposal for this site where the guidance .. because we do not have that yet; I asked for a 2-week delay. The guidance we are relying upon is from 1994 because the upcoming

Supplementary Planning Guidance which would help us determine whether or not this is all going to be okay is 2 weeks away. They cannot give it to me: "It is 2 weeks away, Paul. We have to get the Minister to sign it and read it and decide it, so you cannot have it." So everybody is working on 1994 numbers. The 1994 numbers say: "There should not be more than 100 to 120 habitable rooms per acre on sites in the centre of St. Helier." That is confirmed within the department's own town capacity study where they say increased density, higher levels in town identified at 40. This is on page 10 and I can give all this to Members if they want it but they will not want it so I will say it anyway: "Higher density levels are considered to be 40 and above." Right. Forty and above from 100 to 120 maximum. The Le Coin site where we are going to deliver these homes at the moment has plans in, and I have these emails from the Property Holdings Department: "Planning permission granted for 23 number 1, 2 and 3-bedroom flats on Le Coin site in 2002 .." still a temporary car park though even though we have a housing crisis; States are not delivering housing: ".. on only a quarter acre of site. This represents a high density of 275 habitable rooms per acre which is double the density standard normally permissible in town." Then the latest proposal which I have from Property Holdings, which is on the table, is for 32 number 2-bedroom flats in respect and it equates to not 40, not 100, not 120 but 400. Four hundred habitable rooms per acre. Four hundred rooms on that car park site. Four hundred rooms on that car park site. Where is the amenity space? We have a country park, they can go there! Yes, but hang on, was not the country park included in that town capacity study? Yes, it was.

Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

I wonder if the Minister can do anything to insulate me from Deputy Le Claire. [Laughter] Senator F.E. Cohen:

I would like to suggest that Deputy Le Fondré's first case be the insulation of Deputy Le Claire. [Laughter]

[10:30]

The Bailiff :

Can I remind Members we do have a very long agenda? This .. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

This is a housing crisis and I am going to speak, I am afraid. I know Members may not want it to be done but I am going to speak.

The Bailiff :

Deputy , you of course can speak on the housing matter; this is on sound insulation, though. I do ask Members, it is hard to think of much more that can be said on a topic such as this but if a Members feels he or she has something new to say then of course they may speak. But there has been a certain amount of repetition already and I do invite Members to consider very carefully which amendments they need to speak on and for how long. Now the Deputy of St. Mary, do you feel you have anything new to add?

12. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, in the sense that we have strayed somewhat. What I would like to do is make it quite clear what this amendment says and therefore my starting point is how extraordinary I find the resistance of the Minister for Planning and Environment. What ..

The Bailiff :

That has been said before by a number of ..

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Okay. So what he is saying is he accepts that space should be included in the Supplementary Planning Guidance but not noise. Now the Supplementary Planning Guidance is a part of the Island Plan and what this amendment says is it wants to add a specific request to look at something. It is not imposing these standards ..

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, would the Deputy give way? This is getting awfully torturous. I have already said that I am more than happy to include this in the building bye-laws and I would have hoped that would have been enough.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

If the Minister would just accept it we could all move on. The Deputy of St. Mary :

Well that is exactly the point, the Minister is booting it into the bye-laws but the proposal as it stands on page 144, proposal 10, says that: "The Minister for Planning and Environment will develop and issue new S.P.G. to assist with the regeneration of St. Helier." This is under the heading "Guidelines for Residential Development" and we have heard how important that is from Deputy Le Claire about the densities that are now emerging. "This would establish and inform the application of minimum density standards and will address and establish guidelines for the provision of amenity space and parking." Well, why just amenity space, density and parking; and all that Deputy Le Fondré is saying is that noise should be added as something that should be looked at. He wants to add the words "and whether there should be any improvements in internal noise and sound insulation" he wants to add that as a consideration in the guidelines, which the Minister is already going to review and create and S.P.G. So I really do find the problem extraordinary. The second part of the amendment, which the Minister also rejects I would remind Members, paragraph 6.153 it is just useful to look at the words, is it not, and look how amazing it is that we are talking about this. This is part of the text which Deputy Le Fondré wants to amend, 6.153: "All new housing developments will also be expected to provide an adequate standard of accommodation. In particular in relation to dwelling size, internal layout and room sizes this will be assessed along with other considerations relating to site density, privacy, daylight and noise, energy efficiency, car parking space, private and public open space, children's play areas, designing out crime and landscaping; as appropriate relative to S.P.G. to be published by the Minister." All Deputy Le Fondré wants to do is add to that list: ".. and any further improvements in standards for internal noise and sound insulation." All he is doing is adding to a long list. Why is the Minister resisting this, I do not understand and I shall be voting in favour of it.

13. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

What I have to say is new and I will time myself, I hope to keep to 3 minutes and it should be germane. First of all though I was joking with my colleagues that the reason that Senator Ferguson's apartment did not get any complaint from the neighbours was not because it was so well insulated, it was because all the neighbours were around her New York pad drinking gin and so there were no neighbours to make complaints. Let us get back to basics here; I do not think any of us disagrees with the principles put forward here by Deputy Le Fondré. I think we agree that they are correct. The argument seems to be coming from the Minister that it is better to deal with some of these things by bye-laws, and that statement is being made, but unfortunately he has not made the case why it is better for these to be dealt with by bye-laws. We have been given a statement but the case - I do not believe - has been made. Now, we may hear from the Assistant Minister who may tell us why these things are superfluous. But it seems to me that the Island Plan is both a high level document setting out general policy and general levels of acceptability. We know that it already contains issues to do with space and it addresses these issues; and it seems to me that it would be quite the right place for it to be included in the Island Plan. Now, if that is also addressed

by bye-laws elsewhere it seems to me that we could have a system of belt and braces, that seems perfectly acceptable. But I do not see why there is so much resistance being put up to this being included in the actual wording of the Island Plan as is being suggested here. So that is the first point. The second point; regarding the 10 per cent increase in floor space, it seems to me that if certain flats the practice was that furniture was having to be introduced that was miniature, simply introducing a 10 per cent increase and by extension a 10 per cent increase on that furniture. It would still be miniature furniture, so I think we really need to look at in fact the absolute minimums which are being put forward; because as has been alluded to there is a link between floor space size and noise carrying et cetera. I think those are really the only points to make but just perhaps one last point which is I think quite disturbing and it was alluded to by Deputy Le Claire, is the fact that we are being told there are lots of complaints, presumably lots around the Garden Lane area when Deputy Le Claire is practising his speeches late at night, from residents. We are being told that these people should be submitting complaints to the police and my fear is - and it is just an observation - that we are criminalising behaviour here which is just normal living, so people are being made criminals of because they are simply conducting behaviour in their houses which most of us would take for granted because we do tend to live some of us in detached houses; some of us right in the countryside. I am not one of those, by the way, I live in an attached house; but we can take things for granted and to say that complaints are being made from one neighbour to the other simply because toilets are being flushed, because music is being played loud, because somebody happens to work a night shift and so they have got a completely different work pattern to somebody else; I think that is really the disturbing underlying problem for me. So these people are clearly not criminals and while complaints are being made it would be better if we can eliminate these kind of problems at the planning process and I think that is what we need to do today.

14. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter :

Sometimes I despair and this is one of the occasions which that description fits. We all seem to have missed the main point here; we all seem to be working on the principle that there is a problem and I agree there is a problem. Where we are getting confused is the mechanism by which we deal with that problem. It is quite clear from what the Minister has said that the conduit for dealing with this issue is the bylaw. The building bye-law requirements relating to noise insulation under the auspices of part 9, resistance to the passage of sound, were first introduced in 1997 specifically to deal with the problems of poor sound insulation. These were extended and improved in 2004. What we have is a mechanism for dealing with the problems of sound insulation in buildings, and please do not get confused with other sound problems, with other noise problems that we have; neighbours that make noise. I have a brilliant one, it is called the airport where I live. That is a totally different issue to what we are dealing with here with building insulation and sound proofing. If I wanted to deal with a problem with boats I go to the harbour; if I want to deal with a problem with aeroplanes I go to the airport. If you have a problem with sound insulation you go to the facility that is there and it is called the building bye-laws. The Minister has said clearly - more clearly than anybody else has spoken in this Assembly - that he is willing to bring Deputy Le Fondré to the Planning Department and go through the issues as they exist or perceive to exist. We do not have a problem in dealing with the situation, the problem that we have are people are people trying to move the situation out of the building bylaw and into the planning law. That is daft.

15. Deputy J.B. Fox:

I am not going to repeat. The only point that has not been covered when I was on planning is, yes, we had building bye-laws; what we did not have was enough officers to go around and do the inspections to ensure that the bye-laws had been complied with. That has not been brought up and that might be one of the problems. Thank you.

16. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Very briefly, I fully appreciate what Members are saying about the noise issue. It is a problem. But I think just getting back to the point here, my understanding is the bye-laws are where we control how a property is built. I think what the Minister is saying is that to put this into the bye- laws is the appropriate place for it to be to control the issues which are concerning Members most about noise. I would add just on top of that the noise matter is not going to be resolved, whether it is in the planning law or the bye-laws necessarily. There is the external noise issue which the Deputy of St. John has talked about which is a problem, how neighbours get on with each other. But equally there are problems with the structure of the building, you get a lot of noise transgressing down through downpipes, for example. Living in apartments does have noise issues, but nevertheless there are opportunities to improve the position, I accept that. But really the position has to be, in my view, to support the Minister because the bye-laws are how we do it, that is how the system works. The bye-laws are how we control how a property or a building is constructed and to ensure that the measures are right. One other point that was raised, and I think it was Deputy Higgins who raised it, was about the size and the way in which properties are marketed, some developers, for example, putting undersized furniture and so on. What we do not have in Jersey is a Property Misdescriptions Act and this is not a planning issue, this is very much an issue for another piece of legislation should this House at some point in the future feel it is appropriate then we perhaps should have something to control property misdescription, sizes of properties where the balconies are included in ..

The Bailiff :

Pardon me, Senator, that is moving away from the question of sound which is ..

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I was just addressing that point that was raised by another Member. But I think I have made my .. The Bailiff :

Well we do not need Members to address every highway and byway that other Members address. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Thank you for that. I think that is all I really wanted to say, that I would hope Members would support the Minister in rejecting - although it is very well meaning - the proposition amendments that have been brought forward by Deputy Le Fondré. The bye-laws are really where we should maintain the control.

The Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak? I call upon Deputy Le Fondré to reply.

17. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

I will firstly just thank everybody who has spoken, I do not think I will be responding to the comments. I suppose the only thing I would say is obviously what I wanted to do by bringing this amendment was to draw emphasis to the matter, and I do appreciate that standards change - I think the last time was in 2004 - but there still seem to be issues that keep coming around. The grey area here is, so far as I am concerned - and obviously I am speaking as a layman - is that internal space standards to me are also how a building is built, or at least implements how a building is built and the impact upon them. All I would say is that in proposal 1 of the Island Plan it specifically says: "The Department for the Environment will issue S.P.G. to complement that which already exists." Therefore that is why I then amended proposal 10 to add this in as a further emphasis in the consideration in the round to assist with the regeneration of St. Helier . I do note the comments. As I said, I go back to the point I feel it is something that one needs to emphasise. It is an issue about the quality of the accommodation that we will be producing going forward. I think Senator

Ferguson's comment about the standards on other areas, whether it is the U.S. (United States) or potentially Europe, if we are looking for increased density and things like that in town we need to make that quality better. If one wants to make that quality better the greater emphasis we can put on it the better and, as Senator Ferguson said, the Island Plan certainly makes other lifestyle comments and, therefore, that is why I want to implement this aspect of lifestyle, if you like. I am going to stop there. One, just procedurally, I have obviously tried to design the proposition so it can be taken in separate votes, is it practical to take the ones that the Minister is accepting which is I think (a), (c) and (e) as one vote; and the other 3 which is (b), (d) and (f) as a separate vote?

The Bailiff :

I suppose they do stand or fall together, if Members are happy to proceed in that way.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Yes, so it is 2 votes, thank you very much and I maintain the amendment and call for the appel. The Bailiff :

So on that basis then, as Deputy Le Fondré has requested, the first vote will be on paragraphs (a), (c) and (e) which are the paragraph which the Minister has accepted. All those in favour of adopting paragraphs (a) .. the appel is called for in relation to paragraphs (a), (c) and (e). I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.

[10:45]