Planning and Environment Committee: Vote of No Confidence

PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE: VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

_______________

Lodged au Greffe on 13th April 1999 by Senator R.J. Shenton

______________________________

STATES OF JERSEY

STATES GREFFE

175             1 9 9 9    P . 4 5          

Price code: C

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion -

that they have no confidence in the Planning and Environment Committee.

SENATOR R.J. SHENTON

NOTE: This proposition has the support of -

C o n n é ta b le F. H. Amy of Grouville D e p u ty S. M . B audains

D e p u ty P.  J. R  ondel of St. John

D e p u ty T . J . L e Main of St. Helier

REPORT

A vote of no confidence in a committee is never to be taken lightly. In politics one often finds oneself in opposition to other members' views, but that in itself is not just cause to seek to overthrow the committee.

Why then have I brought this present vote of no confidence against the Planning and Environment Committee? It certainly cannot be said that the Committee members are not committed environmentalists, but the planning side of their role leaves a lot to be desired.

Some twelve months ago, I was approached and asked whether I would take a vote of no confidence against the Committee on the grounds that its lack of decision-making was costing the Island a great deal of money. The members who approached me at the time were convinced then that the Committee went beyond its terms of reference and was seeking to establish itself as an alternative developer with fixed views of its own. I felt then that with the Housing Committee making all the right noises, the Planning and Environment Committee should be given the opportunity to work with it, and to deal with what in my opinion was its most important role, which was to find land to house our resident population.

Unfortunately, nothing has changed, and recently we had the sad spectacle of the President of the Planning and Environment Committee ignoring the wishes of the States, and not just siding with a developer, but making a case on the company's behalf! The matter was serious enough to warrant public debate in the Chamber, but instead the President issued a statement which meant there was no debate or questioning of the Committee. To make matters worse, the statement had been released to the Press and published the day before, and yet the intention was that members would not have a copy of that statement until it had been read out by the President.

The anger in the House was there to be seen, and I felt that the time had come to put in a No Confidence' proposition, not based purely on that particular incident, but rather on a catalogue of failures on the part of this Committee.

I have attached to my proposition some Appendices relating to the matters which I will deal with in my proposition, and will therefore merely sketch out the matters of concern.

The Waterfront

I am a member who happens to believe that our seascape is particularly special and is something which, if possible, should be available to all. One of the pleasures of my task as past President of the Island Development Committee was to purchase part of the land along the Five Mile Road in order to prevent any development along the coastal strip. With the exception of Les Mielles, it seems that today every open space leading to the sea is being closed up as soon as buyers get their hands on it.

We have large apartment blocks being built along the coastline, which effectively shut out the rest of the community and dominate the immediate neighbours. Town dwellers have waited patiently for a green lung on the Waterfront, but again procrastination and conflict on the part of the Planning and Environment Committee have caused many of us hours of frustration and the prospect of further delays.

Members will recall that I took a Private Member's Bill to the States for work to proceed at the Havre des Pas pool without delay, and although not yet completed, it looks as if at least one project will be enjoyed by residents this summer.

The rest of the development was scheduled to improve the Waterfront, and here I have to declare an interest. I wanted the Waterfront kept free from housing and other large buildings, but lost in a democratic vote and accepted the decision of the House. That decision was to proceed, with WEB acting as our agent bringing forward proposals which would clean up the Waterfront and develop it for the benefit of all Islanders. The Abbatoir site was going to be developed, the bus station moved - or so I thought - but no, we are still being held in check by a Committee which appears to know what is best of all of us, including retaining the internal walls of the slaughterhouse.

WEB is not the easiest body to work with, and their Chairman was appointed because he was a person who would get things done, and so we thought we knew where we wanted to go. Sadly all WEB's efforts and the enthusiasm of their Chairman has been stifled by this negative planning committee. I do not believe that WEB should be free from planning control, but planning control to me means interpretation of plans and their place along the seascape.  It does not mean interference and alternative schemes.

See Appendix A.

Project Immanuel

A wonderful scheme, a scheme which was visionary and sought to provide a community feel to any development which would take place in this area. A committee of dedicated Church people working together to provide something for the Millennium, which would be something for all time and all people. Some of us were fortunate to be members of the team which looked at the Waterfront, and were party to the change of site at the request of Planning, and were also aware of the need to try to achieve the development at nil cost to the public. Again, you will find in the Appendices a chronological history which should show without any doubt whatsoever that Planning was aware of the plans of this well-intentioned group and yet found themselves as a competitor at the 11th hour, with all sorts of rabbits being pulled out of the hat to justify their inertia in not providing land for housing and other essential services.

See Diary of events at Appendix B (5 pages).

Boards of Administrative Appeal

Requests for Appeal Boards over the past two years mainly concern planning decisions, and the time taken up in processing requests, forming Boards and calling witnesses is time-consuming, but nevertheless a worthy system as Jersey's ombuds panel. If one reads the Reports of the Boards one will find that in many cases the application is

withdrawn because of the Committee changing their minds, but in the cases which do go before the Board it is perhaps appropriate to identify the wording used when the appeals have been upheld. "Accordingly, the Board finds that the decision of Planning and Environment to refuse to grant planning permission could not have been made by a reasonable body of persons after proper consideration of all the facts". Enough said.

Housing

Housing - or the lack of it - is the matter which concerns me most. The situation has worsened under this committee. Developments which have taken place are those which have been in the pipeline for many years, and now we have a situation where developments are more and more increasing in height and density, with the resultant diminution of privacy and parking facilities. The vision for the future would appear to be that flat dwellers will predominate, and Heaven help them if they have a second car or a visitor. If it is the Committee's intention to build all this accommodation in the town areas then I shudder to think where all the cars are going, because they are certainly not being accommodated on the building site. The price of housing has gone well beyond the means of many Island residents - not because of building costs but because the policies of Planning and Environment have increased values by reason of land scarcity, and we are now living in a monopoly community. Grandiose schemes dreamed up by greedy speculators are now the vogue, and I believe the Kensington Place development is being hawked around at a price between £4 million and £5 million. These developments have provided smart operators, with the opportunity to make millions out of schemes which will never provide a single home for the social needy.

Because of the scarcity of land, other sites in the town area are reaching lottery-type prices and all the Planning and Environment Committee seem to do is to spend their time making sure that plastic windows are not used.

Since January 1997, no new sites have been zoned for category A housing, despite clear evidence of increasing need for both social rented housing and for first-time buyers.

The rental waiting list figures have just been released up to the end of 1998, and show that in the last two years there has been an increase from 268 to 373. Families with young children are having to wait up to two years to be offered adequate accommodation, and the situation is getting worse, not better.

The need for more homes for first-time buyers is as great as it was ten years ago - over 250 families applied for the 67 dwellings at Belle Vue, and 42 with parish connections applied for just twelve houses in St. Mary. The St. Mary site was zoned in April 1994.

The latest press release from the Planning and Environment Committee regarding "Planning for Homes" is full of self- congratulation and claims "spectacular results". The hard facts are quite depressing.

One acquisition - Le Cole to provide 120 dwellings, mostly two-bedroom flats, in 2002/3.

Two further acquisitions agreed - Aquilla and Mont St. Clair to provide a total of 39 dwellings, all one or two-bedroom flats, in 2001/2.

Allowing for the above, the Planning for Homes document confirms that there remains a shortfall of nearly 600 dwellings required to rent and a further 350 plus required for first-time buyers. The Planning Committee was made very aware of the growing problem in early 1997 by the previous Housing Committee, and yet has failed to respond with any sense of urgency. There are many opportunities to rezone sites for category A housing on the edges of the built-up area, which could be developed far more quickly, easily and at less cost than urban sites. That is not to say that urban sites should not be developed, because both are needed. It is a question of balance, and that balance is not evident in the approach adopted by the Planning and Environment Committee.

Members will no doubt detect a tinge of disappointment in my approach to the Committee, because although I believe in conservation and good architecture, I also believe that a Planning Committee's greatest task is to create a balance and to provide for those people who need housing at a modest cost. Again, in the Appendices, you win find information with regard to the housing situation in our Island, and this will say more than I can.

See Appendices C, D and E.

Finally to come up to the present day. On the day the Committee approved the Grouville Bay development, they also rejected a request by a Jerseyman to build a small apartment block to house his family. This was on a small area of land at St. Peter boarded on all sides by development but, according to the Committee, there is a presumption against development in this area. This decision seems to show quite clearly that this Committee does not have a grasp of the present need in this Island, nor indeed its place in justice.

See Appendix F (4 pages).

APPENDIX A

October 1996

The Waterfront Enterprise Board (WEB) finalises its policy on the development of the Island Site, to maximise its use as a transportation centre at minimal cost to the taxpayer.

January 1997

Joint meeting is held between WEB and the Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) on the way forward for the Island Site. The Committee appear to be supportive, but subsequently we are informed that they are not. (Two members missing from the meeting in January were Deputies Layzell and Crowcroft .)

March 1997

Board approves plans for a transportation centre on the Island Site and hold an informal meeting with PEC both to present and to explain the concept behind the plans. WEB compromises by retaining the main slaughterhouse, which is to be refurbished as a passenger waiting area. Only the former cow and pig holding areas are to be demolished.

WEB expresses itself as being keen to compromise and to preserve buildings, but only consistent with providing an efficient transportation centre and containing costs.

April 1997

Following no agreement or compromise from PEC after the March 1997 presentation, WEB agrees that the only way forward is to make a formal planning application and bring all the issues out in the open.

April 1997

The President of PEC states that he needs three to four weeks to consult with Public Services and the Jersey Motor Transport Co. (JMT).

May 1997

WEB submits formal planning application to PEC for the development of the Island Site. June l997

WEB's plans are welcomed by the media, by the Chamber of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Small Business Association and, more importantly, the JMT.

July 1997

PEC rejects WEB's plans. November 1997

The Policy and Resources Committee (P&R) organises a joint presentation by WEB and PEC on their respective plans for the Island Site. The object of this joint meeting is to enable States members to have a clear understanding of all the issues, prior to the States being asked to decide upon which of the two schemes should proceed.

January 1998

Joint presentation to States members on WEB and PEC schemes after a site visit by members.

WEB advises that a transportation centre on the Island Site can be achieved at a cost of below £2m, but only with the selective demolition of some internal buildings.

PEC employs consultants, Drivers Jonas, Halcrow Fox and Paul Drury to promote a scheme for the relocation of the buses onto the Island Site, the retention of the internal buildings, and for the use of these for retail purposes so that their project can be done at nil cost to the States.

January 1998

Following the joint presentation (40 States members in attendance), the majority of States members contacted by the Jersey Evening Post (JEP) are found to be in favour of WEB's plans.

February 1998

Against WEB's wishes, P&R gives PEC a deadline to 20th May 1998 to find a developer who will develop the Island Site at nil cost and on the basis of PEC's brief.

March 1998

PEC extensively markets the Island Site as a development opportunity in the United Kingdom national press. However, the advert is grossly misleading in that it fails to mention the fundamental requirement for a bus station, or the need for extensive conservation of the buildings on the site. The advert could be construed as misleading. sharp practice and liable to bring Jersey into disrepute in the property world. WEB writes letter of protest to the President of the Finance and Economics Committee.

May 1998

PEC announces they have a shortlist of three developers. Chief Officer of PEC states "a preferred developer is due to be selected by the end of July 1998, at which time the Committee will seek the States' full approval.".

May 1998

P&R express dissatisfaction over lack of detail on shortlisted developers provided by PEC and the time delay.

June 1998

President of P&R announces his intention to bring the future development of the Island Site to the States for a decision. August 1998

PEC announces that it intends to bring an order to the States declaring the Island Site to be a Site of Special Interest (SSI). Time is now needed to go through the procedures.

WEB confirms that it had told PEC two years ago that there was no SSI order over the site but this had been ignored by PEC. August 1998

PEC denies claims that making the SSI order will delay the Island Site development. Chief Officer confirms that PEC now have seven developers who are prepared to develop the site as a bus station and to conserve all the buildings at no cost to the States.

October 1998

JMT object to SSI order, stating PEC's scheme would not allow them to operate an efficient bus service and would cost an extra £0.35m per annum to operate.

October 1998

WEB objects to SSI order, stating that the matter must be considered first by the States as there is an outstanding States' decision on the use of the property. There is also the risk of wasting £6m on the refurbishment of all the internal buildings because PEC will not be able to find a developer to do their scheme.

November 1998

PEC holds SSI hearing on the Island Site.

November 1998

After the SSI hearing has been held, Public Services Principal Engineer states "Planning's proposals and any SSI designation could lead to the proposed bus station for the site being squeezed in." He also states that WEB's plans are preferred.

November 1998

PEC imposes SSI status on the Island Site, despite objections, and without any opportunity of a debate in the States. December 1998

President of PEC makes a statement to the States on the designation of the SSI status on the Island Site. He states that in making its decision the Committee was bound not to consider secondary issues such as - future development of the site, the cost and the use as a transportation centre. He states that the Committee now needs the advice of the Public Services Committee (PSC) on the use of this site as a transportation centre in order to be able to resolve all the issues involved.

January/March 1999

A working group, comprising representatives from PEC and Public Services is formed to advise the consultant appointed by the Public Services Department (PSD) to consider the options for the development of the Island Site as a transportation centre. The consultant is still to produce his final report, but is believed to be considering the Weighbridge as an option.

Some general comments

1. WE B has a clear mandate from the States to relocate the bus station onto the Island Site as per the States' decision of December 1995, which in itself reflects the previous decision of the Island Development Committee and the States in 1992.
2. WE B provided PEC in December 1995 with five costed options for discussion and agreement. PEC chose to ignore these options and to develop its own plans.
3. WE B has tried to compromise on the conservation of manyof the buildings, including the central hallway, and to discuss these plans with PEC. No compromise forthcoming from PEC.
4. WE B has worked closely with PSD and JMT to agree a sensible transportation centre on the site, given the conservation restrictions imposed, which at that time were thought to relate only to the Walls, Tourism, Harbour Office and Albert House.
5. J a n u a ry 1998 - clear opinion from States members in favour ofWEB's scheme. PEC seek to stall and delay. They have done everything to avoid a States debate.
6. P& R gave PEC three months from February 1998 to prove their claim that they had developers able to do their scheme at nil cost. PEC have failed to prove their case. Schemes submitted on the basis ofPEC's brief are all unacceptable from a traffic viewpoint because the brief was defective. There must be concerns that United Kingdom and local developers have been led up the garden path' by a very amateur and unprofessional marketing exercise devised solely to prove PEC's conservation case by implying that there were developers willing and able to meet its brief.
7. With time running out on deadline imposed by P&R in early 1998, PEC changed tack and decided to make an order designating the site an SSI.
8. SSI O rder was made by PEC but the States were given no opportunity to consider the consequences or the alternatives.
9. B e c a u se the President ofP&R threatened to bring the issue to a head in the States with a proposition toamend the designation of the SSI, PEC changed tack once more and decided to consult with Public Services over the needs and specifications for a transportation centre on the Island Site.
10. T h e consultant appointed by Public Services at PEC's request is apparently of the opinion that PEC's scheme is not feasible or realistic from a transportation point of view (never mind the financial issues!). PEC would seem to be changing tack yet again by giving credence to the consultants' (?) suggestion that the buses are kept on the Weighbridge. However, PSD, who commissioned the consultant are, I understand, adamant that the Weighbridge option is ruled out on the lack of expansion space alone. If PEC can change the focus of the debate onto the

Weighbridge it will be able to sustain its foolish designation of all of the abattoir buildings as an SSI.

11. WE B has consistently sought, where there has been disagreement with PEC, to have the issue of the Island Site resolved by the States, as the proper forum for debate and decision-making. PEC has consistently found ways and methods to avoid States intervention.

APPENDIX B

Project Immanuel - diary of events

4.11.95 J E P Article "How would you mark the millennium" and asking for suggestions for the Policy and Resources Committee to consider.

95. PR  C presented paper to elders of the Jersey Community Church.
    96. E ld e rs circulated paper to ministers and clergy throughout the Island.

14.3.96 Je r s ey Community Church submitted paper to P&R (matters had not proceeded sufficiently to submit paper on behalf of Islandwide churches, and deadline had arrived).

2.4.96 D r . G eorge Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, wishes us success.

4.4.96 T h e Pr ince of Wales wishes us success.

19.4.96 Fir s t meeting of ministers and clergy.

24.4.96 Se co nd meeting of ministers and clergy.

8.5.96 Fir  s t meeting of Steering Group: The Revd. Canon David Mahy, The Revd. Ray Speck, The Revd. David Miller, The Revd. Paul Drury, Dr. John Stewart-Jones, Mike Field, Martin and Alison Bullivant, Peter Cushen.

5.96? Pr  e sentation to Christians Together in Jersey.

15.5.96 M ee ting with John Scally (of WEB) and Peter Thorne (of the Planning and Building Services Department). Both were positively receptive to the project; and various locations on the Waterfront were identified, subject to political support.

17.6.96 L e n Stevens, Quantity Surveyor, of Tillyard Jersey estimates costs of the Immanuel Centre at £14m, based on plans and drawings of Harris Collie, Architect, of Barnes & Collie.

23.7.96 Pr e sentation to States members in the States Building (arranged with Mike Wavell's assistance). About 12 States members attended (during a busy lunch recess).

29.7.96 T h e Steering Group sponsors a JEP feature on the project.

1.8.96 Pu  b li c presentation by Dr. John Stewart-Jones and Harris Collie at the Immanuel Christian Centre.

19.9.96 Pr e s entation to Methodist Circuit.

6.11.96 Pr e s entation to BDO (in the course of their preparing a report on a conference centre/concert hall for Jersey).

18.11.96 Se  nator Dick Shenton declares support.

26.11.96 T o urism Committee members (Dick Shenton, Jean Le Maistre, Corrie Stein, Edwin Godel, Mac Pollard, F.J. Hill, Phil Rondel) declare support.

However, P&R declares support for -

(1 ) u r b an park;

(2 ) So c iété Jersiaise grants scheme re. Jersey history; and

(3 ) H ig hlands College - annual research bursary for post graduate course re. Jersey society.

96. Ste e ring Group letter (signed by all members) published inJEP.
    97. Se n ator Dick Shenton, Captain John Le Page and Revd. lain MacFirbhisigh became members of the Steering Group. The Very Revd. John Seaford joins the Group in a consultative capacity.

17.2.97 B D O present their Report, recommending a £35m conference centre/concert hall.

25.4.97 M e mbers of the Steering Group meet with John Scally (of WEB) and Peter Thorne (of the Planning and Building Services Department). Suggested move from seafront to Esplanade Car Park Site (at their earlier suggestion) favourably received. Need to maintain car parking spaces and consider some office development.

13.5.97 M e eting with interested States members in the New Committee Room, States Building. Seven members attended.

19.6.97 M ee ting with full board of WEB with Harris Collie and Len Stevens. Proposals for the development of the Esplanade Car Park Site well received.

2.7.97 WE B write, encouraging the Steering Group "to continue to develop its plans in partnership with its funders", and offering not to negotiate with any other party for the development of the site for a period in order to "give your funders greater confidence and perhaps encourage them to finance the preliminary plans and costings".

17.9.97 M e eting between members of the Steering Group, Harris Collie, Len Stevens and Steve Morgan O.B.E., Chairman of Redrow Group plc. and Seigneur of Trinity Manor. Redrow come on board as developer.

? 97 Pr e s entation to the Roman Catholic Deanery Pastoral Council.

21.1.98 M e e ting with Senator Corrie Stein, President of the Housing Committee, who very much supports the proposals for housing on the site.

6.2.98 Pr e s e ntation to the full board of WEB (though Derek Maltwood and Bob Le Brocq are not present and receive a subsequent presentation).

?.2.98 M e m  bers of the Steering Group visit The Oakwood Centre, Cleveland, and The King's Centre, Chessington. ?.3.98 D e p u ty Terry Le Sueur joins the Steering Group and develops a business plan.

?.9.98 T h e f ollowing agree in principle to be trustees -

1 . th e A nglican Dean, The Very Revd. John Seaford;

2 . th e R oman Catholic Dean, The Revd. Canon David Mahy;

3 . th e M ethodist Superintendent, The Revd. Ian White;

4 . th e P resident of Christians Together in Jersey, The Revd. Fred Noden; and 5 . a r e p resentative of the Jersey Evangelical Alliance.

20.10.98 T h e Steering Group meets with representatives of WEB (Don Filleul and John Scally) and Redrow. Agree that, subject to States approval, the development should proceed as a joint venture between the Steering Group and WEB, with Redrow as developer. Presentations to PEC and P&R to be arranged. Then presentations to States members and the public.

26.11.98 Pr  esentation to the full Planning and Environment Committee by the Steering Group with the assistance of Redrow.

98. PE C write, giving effectively a consent in principle, with positive comments. They suggest some minor changes, together with one major change (namely that we should add a one-form entry primary school and nursery). According to the Committee, The Immanuel Centre "would provide a useful and desirable communal facility in the central town area.".
    99. Pr e s e ntation to the Methodist Circuit Leadership.

9.2.99 T e r ry Le Sueur raises the possibility of the Immanuel Group making a presentation to P&R. P&R decide to consider the Waterfront as a whole, and wish to consult with WEB rather than receive a presentation from the Immanuel Group at this stage.

23.2.99 Pr e s entation to the Anglican Synod. Warm reception.

8.3.99 R o m a n Catholic Deanery Pastoral Council receives an update.

5.3.99 U n k n own to the Immanuel Group, Senator Nigel Querée makes a presentation to the Presidents of P&R, Defence, Housing, the Chairman and Managing Director of WEB, Constable Le Feuvre, and chief and senior officers. Senator Querée's plan includes a police station, a (two-form entry?) primary school, States offices, houses, car park and open space, and bridge across La Route de la Libération. The stated purpose of the meeting was "to seek a decision whether the ideas should be further investigated." PEC claim that "There was a consensus at that meeting that this should be done by WEB and Planning are awaiting confirmation of this from the Policy and Resources Committee.".

5.3.99 T e rr y Le Sueur sends a private fax to Senator Querée, seeking clarification and objecting.

11.3.99 Pe te r Cushen, on behalf of the Immanuel Group, writes to Senator Querée, seeking clarification and objecting, and sends a circular to all States members.

Senator R.J. Shenton         O u r R  e f: E L e R /J  A C   George Troy & Sons Limited              

New North Quay            5 Se  p te m  b e r 1 9 9 7     St. Helier

Jersey JE2 3ND

Dear Dick,

Sites for Category "A" Housing

Further to our recent telephone conversation, I would like to confirm the current position in respect of the Category "A" Sites available for development, either with States Loan or Social Rented Housing.

Although several commercial sites were acquired for Social Rented Housing in 1990 and 1991, with the exception of Belle Vue, the Waterfront and a small site in St. Mary , no sites for Category "A" housing have been zoned since Projet 57 was partially approved late in 1989. It is not altogether surprising that we are now faced with a steadily growing problem of demand for housing far exceeding supply.

In the years 1992 to 1995 inclusive, well over 1,000 Category "A" dwellings for either sale or rent were completed. This programme of development, combined with a healthy contribution of over 600 Category "B" dwellings by the private sector in the same period, helped to keep house prices and rental levels relatively stable and dramatically reduced the waiting period for lower income families to be allocated reasonable rental accommodation.

Over the last twelve months in particular, the chronic shortage of new site for residential development combined with steady demand, has forced up the price of what limited land is available and, consequently, the value of completed houses by, in some cases, as much as 30%.

The next few years look extremely grim for young families with residential qualifications seeking to rent or buy their first homes. The rental waiting list has, since the end of 1996, been growing steadily and now stands at just over 300. Allowing for losses on some of the Committee's redevelopment projects, and excluding the contribution to be made by the Belle Vue and Waterfront sites, the net gain in terms of dwellings to rent for social housing on approved sites is just over 100 in  total for the period from now until 2006. The situation for first time buyers on modest incomes is possibly even worse, with the current shortage of supply having forced prices up beyond their means and no new sites whatsoever earmarked to meet their need.

Sites which can be developed relatively easily and quickly need to be identified now, as well as longer term opportunities for redevelopment that may exist in the built up area, in order to meet not only the demand from the existing residentially qualified population, but also that which will arise from the year 2000 when an additional 100 persons/families per year obtain their qualifications under the twenty year rule.

Yours sincerely,

ERIC LE RUEZ

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Direct line: 884444

(R.C.9/97)

REPORT States rental waiting list

1. T h e w aiting list as at 1st January 1997 comprises 268 families/individuals. This compares with the figure of 300 at 1st January 1996 and 315 at 1st January 1995.
2. O f th ese 268, 137 are considered to be in urgent need ofre-housing for various reasons, including ill health, sub- standard accommodation and overcrowding. (This figure of 137 is the same figure as in January 1996) although they will be different applicants and 176 in January 1995.
3. I n a d d ition, the Committee has 10 families/individuals in temporary hostel accommodation awaiting re-housing.
4. D u rin g 1996, 294 families/individuals were accepted on to the waiting list. This figure compares with 253 in 1995 and 274 in 1994.
5. T h e r eduction in the waiting list is tobe welcomed. The Committee was assisted in its task with the allocation of accommodation at the new housing developments at Liberation Court, Westley Court and Brooklands, a development by the Jersey Homes Trust.

  I t is u n likely that there will be a significant improvement in the numbers on the waiting list this year, as the

Committee will be using much of its void stock to re-house those families who are affected by its major refurbishment programmes.

  T h e C o mmittee will shortly start on the first phase of the refurbishment of Grasett Park, which will see some 30

families moving to alternative accommodation this year. The next phase of the redevelopment of Le Geyt Flats will commence later in the year, which means the transfer of some 33 families to alternative accommodation during the spring and summer of 1997. Moreover, the second phase of the demolition and rebuild of Elysée Estate is due to start next year, which means moving some 60 families this year.

  It  is es s ential therefore that the planned new rental development programme is maintained and those sites already

identified for housing development over the next five years are developed without any reduction in number and within the timescale indicated. The programme is heavily dependent upon the continued support of housing associations, given the Housing Committee's major commitment to use its capital resources to upgrade its existing stock, thereby bringing its older estates up to present-day standards.

Rental development programme

1. 7 8 r e ntal units are under construction on the sites detailed below - We s tle y C o u r t

   O a k T  re e G a r dens

O T C Si te , P h a se II

2. A n e t gain of 166 rental units is considered probable as a result of developments of the following sites over the next five years -

H o u s in g association developments

K e n t L o d g e

Po s t O f fic e s ite , Mont Millais Sa n d y b ro o k

B e lle   V u e

Wa  te  r fr o n t

FB   C o tta  g e s  

L a M  o tte   site  , Grouville

L e m p r iè r e S  tr eet/Cannon Street

H o u s in g Committee developments

Wilk e s G a r d e ns (Nicholson Park Phases V and VI) E ly s é e E  sta  te , Phases II and III

  H o w  e v er, there will be a further reduction of 54 units with the redevelopment of Cherry Orchard Court and Le

Geyt Flats.

APPENDIX E (R.C.33/97)

REPORT

States rental waiting list

1. T h e w aiting list as at 30th June 1997 comprises 296 families/individuals. This compares with the figure of 268 at 1st January 1997.
2. O  f th e se 296, 162 are considered to be in urgent need of re-housing for various reasons; including ill-health, sub- standard accommodation and overcrowding. This compares to 137 families/individuals at 1st January 1997.
3. I n a d d ition, the Committee has nine families/individuals in temporary hostel accommodation awaiting re-housing.
4. D  u rin  g the six months from 1st January and 30th June 1997, 154 families/individuals were accepted on to the waiting list. This compares with 145 families/individuals for the first six months of 1996.
5. T  h e w  aiting list has increased by28 overall over the first six months of this year. This is the first rise in the numbers of persons on the waiting list since 1990. Unfortunately, the increased demand will continue as there is now a serious shortage of suitable units available to rent.

It s h o u ld also be noted that the Committee's extensive refurbishment programme at Grasett Park, Le Geyt Flats and

Elysée Estate, has meant the decanting of many families to alternative accommodation, some of which would have been allocated to persons on the waiting list.

  T h e C o mmittee's new build programme is heavily dependent upon the continued support of housing associations,

given its commitment to use its capital resources to upgrade its existing stock.

  T h e C o mmittee again reminds members that it is essential that if those in greatest housing need are to be provided

with suitable accommodation, then it is essential that sites zoned for housing, such as the Belle Vue Site, the Postal Site, the Lemprière Street/Cannon Street Site, the La Motte Ford Site are developed without further delay. The provision of some housing on the Waterfront is also critical if the demand is to be satisfied.

  Fu  rth  e r more, it is almost certain that additional sites will need to be identified in the near future to meet increased

housing requirements from the year 2000 when the first qualifiers under the 20 year rule will be seeking to move from lodging to "(a-h)" accommodation - some of whom will inevitably qualify for acceptance on the Committee's waiting list.

Rental development programme

1. 7 6 u n its are under construction on the sites detailed below -

O a k T re e Gardens (Elysée Estate Phase I) O T C Si te, Phase II

2. A n e t gain of 155 rental units is considered probable as a result of developments of the following sites over the next five years -

H o u s in g association developments

K e n t L o dge - Jersey Homes Trust Po sta l Si te - Jersey Homes Trust Sa n d y b rook - Jersey Homes Trust

B e lle   V  ue - Jersey Homes Trust

Wa  te  rf r ont

FB   C o tta  ges - F.B. Cottages Trust

L a M  o tte  Ford Site - Jersey Homes Trust

L e m p r iè re Street/Cannon Street - Jersey Homes Trust

H o u s in g Committee developments

Wilk es Gardens (Nicholson Park, Phases V & VI) E ly s é e E  state, Phases II & III

APPENDIX F

FROM:

Senator R.J. Shenton, OBE., January 26th 1999.

States of Jersey

Senator Nigel Queree,

President - Planning & Environment, States Offices,

South Hill,

ST. HELIER JE2 4US.

Dear Mr. President,

1 have been approached by an employee of mine Mr. Martin Ball of Windyways, La Rue des Niemes, St. Peter with regard to the refusal of permission to provide three self-contained flats at Windyways.

As someone who represented Mr. Ball when he originally built his own home for his family I find it difficult to come to terms with this refusal and would like to present an appeal on his behalf to your Committee.

Will you please arrange for me to see the Planning Officer concerned with the proposed development in order that I may represent Mr. Ball's case without delay.

Yours sincerely,

Senator R.J. Shenton O.B.E.,

President,

Committee of Health and Social Services.

N.B. (for information 13th April 1999)

Site

Bordered by development on four sides. Area including all the garden. Less than 20 perch. Opposite flats owned by Cooper & Lybrand for staff. Applicant will take advice from the Planning officers as to number of units and area of development.

Form P.&E.3 (P) States of Jersey

Planning & Environment Committee

South Hill St. Helier Jersey JE2 4US Tel: 01534 25511 Fax: 01534 68952

ISLAND PLANNING (JERSEY) LAW, 1964.

To:

M r. M. Ball           R e g i st r a ti o n No . 2 1 68/P W indyways

L a Rue des Niemes

S t. Peter

The Planning and Environment Committee, having considered your [agent's] application in respect of the following development:-   C o n st r u ct new building to provide 3 No. self-contained flats with underground parking

at:

  W i n d y wa  ys, La Rue des Niemes, St. Peter

hereby gives notice of its decision to REFUSE Planning Principle PERMISSION for the following reasons:-

1. The proposal is contrary to the approved Island Plan policy for the Agricultural Priority Zone in which there is a presumption against new non-agricultural development.
2. The proposed development is of an inappropriate scale, form and design, which would detract from the appearance of the area. Date:  18th January 1999     S i g n e d :    f o r Di  rector.

States of Jersey Planning & Environment Committee Planning & Building Services

South Hill St. Helier Jersey JE2 4US Tel: 01534 725511 Fax: 01534 768952

Senator R J Shenton

President

Committee of Health and Social Services C/o George Troy & Sons

New North Quay

St Helier

Jersey

2168/P 30th March 1999

Dear Senator Shenton,

Windyways, La Rue des Niemes, St. Peter

The full Planning and Environment Committee at its meeting held on 25th March 1999 considered the application which had been submitted by Mr. Ball of Windyways, La Rue des Niemes, St. Peter , following its visit to the site.

The Committee recognised that there were two matters which it had to consider, firstly, the question of principle and secondly the matter of the scale, form and design of the proposal. Taking the second issue first, the Committee recognised that if it was prepared to agree the principle of development on the site, then the scale and nature of the development could actually be the subject of further negotiations. The Committee therefore focused its main deliberations upon the issue of principle.

The Committee recognised that the whole of St. Peter's was "washed over" by the "Agricultural Priority Zone" in the Island Plan, but that it had also been proposed that a village study should be undertaken. This village study would have defined the boundary of the village and enable decisions on sites such as this to be easily made. Until such a study is undertaken, it is not possible to determine whether or not if the triangular area bounded by La Rue de la Pont, Le Pres and La Rue des Niemes, would be regarded within the village of St. Peter or outside it. As it currently stands, the site does lie within the Agricultural Priority Zone and the Committee has decided to maintain its previous decision of refusal in accordance with Island Plan policy.

The Committee has however has given instructions that the boundaries of all the settlements be defined in the new Island Plan and I have written to the Island Plan Team enclosing a copy of the application plan and requested that particular attention is paid to this triangular area.

We will advise Mr Ball of progress on the Island Plan in order that he may see where the boundary of the Built-Up Area for St. Peter 's will occur, in order to determine whether to submit a fresh application on his site in due course. If he does so, then he will need to discuss the details of the development with the Area Planning Officer, prior to making a submission.

The process which 1 have described above is one which is occurring on a number of sites around the Island, and the Committee is most concerned to ensure that a clearer definition of boundaries of the Built-Up Area is included in the next Island Plan.

Yours sincerely,

G.D. Smith

Assistant Director - Development Control