Island Plan 2002, Policy H2 Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854

STATES OF JERSEY

r

ISLAND PLAN 2002, POLICY H2: FIELDS 848, 851, 853, AND 854

Lodged au Greffe on 20th April 2006 by the Connétable of St. Lawrence

STATES GREFFE

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to re f er to their Act dated 11th July 2002 in which they approved the Island Plan 2002 and, in particular, in

which they approved the zoning of land for Category A housing listed in Policy H2 of the Plan including Fields 848, 851, 853 and 854, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence, and –

t o re q u e s t the Minister of Planning and Environment to bring forward for approval by the

Assembly an amendment to paragraph 8.71 of Island Plan 2002 which relates to the above fields so that the words "The site could accommodate approximately 97 homes with 1.5 acres (3.4 vergées) of public open space/landscape area as part of the development" in the said paragraph be amended to read "The site will accommodate a maximum of 97 homes (comprising two, three or four bedrooms or any combination thereof) with 1.5 acres (3.4 vergées) of public open space/landscape area as part of the development."

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. LAWRENCE

REPORT

1. S t a ndingOrdersdonotallow a proposition to bebroughtinthename of more than one private member but I must stress that this proposition is brought with the full support of both of the Deputies of St. Lawrence andthe Deputy ofSt. Peter.
2. T h i s site has provedthemost controversial ofalloftheH2 Island Plan sites. It is affected by,or has an impact upon, flooding, traffic, neighbouringbusinessesand noise issues.
3. I n 2003,as part of the initial consultation bythe Planning Department, the ParishofSt. Lawrence was asked for comments in respect of this site and the proposed development. In my written reply we expressed significantconcerns and specifically commentedon the 97units identified in the Island Plan. The Planning and EnvironmentDepartment did notat that time correct thepresumption that the number of units involved was 97, and therefore the consultation with the Parish never even mentioned the possibility that the development would be for more than 97units.
4. I t is myopinion that any memberof the Public (or indeedanyMemberof the States) would quite naturally assume, upon reading the Island Plan, that thedevelopment would consist of the97unitsmentionedin paragraph 8.71. Manyof the initial concernsof the Parishionersof St. Lawrence and St. Peter (and othe membersof the Public) werebased upon 97 units. During the whole planning processtodate,many hundreds of written representationshave been receivedby the Department, and all public meetingsat St. Lawrence Parish Hall have been very well attended; the most recent meeting on24th October 2005 was attendedbyapproximately180 people.
5. F r o m day 1,manyresidentsof both St. Peter and St. Lawrence have objected to various aspects ofthi proposed development, generally to no avail.
6. A s has been the case with a numberofotherH2 sites, the actual proposals for thedevelopment are entirely different to the original details in the States approved Island Plan.The first formal application was for 150 units, whichwassubsequently modified to approximately140. Neither of these were approved.The present application(which has notyet been determined) is for 129 units.
7. M a ny Island residents dowonderwhatwasthepurposeofthe Island Plan given that various aspects in respect of the H2 sites appeartohave been disregarded(bythe Planning Department) since the Island Plan wasapprovedby the States Assembly. Essentially residents feel entirely let down bythewhole situation, anddoquestion the integrity ofthe consultation process.
8. T h e aimof this proposition is to request the Minister for Planning and Environmenttobring back part of the Island Plan to the States. Thedevelopmentisitem 1 ofIsland Plan Policy H2 and is referredtoin paragraphs 8.71, 8.72and 8.73 of that document. I wish to achieve clarification ofwhatparagraph 8.71 of the Island Plan actuallymeans.
9. I b e lieve that by giving the opportunity to the States to confirm and clarify this partofthe Island Planwe can begin the process ofreengagement with the Public of this Island. It will be recognised as a positive signal that we are indeed prepared to listen to their concerns and are willing toconsiderandaddress them at the highest level.
10. A brief outline ofsomeofthe issues surrounding the site are asfollows –
11. T h e traffic implications of this one site are horrific. By placing it ononeof the two key routesin from the West ofthe Island itisimpactinguponan already congestedarea.Theprojections for delays are not just on the St. Peter's Valley Road. For example, traffic delays onMont Felard areprojected to increase by over 50% (thusimpactingonanyone from St. Mary, St. John or St. Lawrence whouse this road for the morning commute).Theseprojections exclude any otherdevelopment occurring in the Westof the Island.
12. T h e office of the Deputy Prime Minister in the United Kingdom has recently completed public

consultation on Planning Policy Statement 25 (Development and Flood Risk) (PPS25) (it will replace Planning

Policy Guidance 25 when issued). Broadly speaking it seeks to encourage development in areas with a lower flood risk, to shift development from areas of higher risk to areas of lower risk, and appears to indicate that one should not build on a flood plain. Whilst the UK guidance is not applicable to Jersey (as a separate jurisdiction), it is my opinion that both the current and the proposed flood guidance would not support this development, which appears to fail the proposed Exception Test' on at least one count. However the consultants employed by the developer have indicated that they are satisfied that the development will not be at risk from flooding. They have based their modelling on a site in the United Kingdom (which they consider to be similar to the one in Jersey). It is fair to say that many residents remain unconvinced by their views.

13. T h e site is directly opposite Jersey Steel,andwhilst Jersey Steel couldbeconsideredtobe a bad neighbour' the company has been at its present location since the 1950'sand generally has operated with few complaints. This is primarily because the noise from its operations is directed out across themarsh, generally only disturbing grazing cowsorhorses.Thecompanyemploys60peopleandisoneof the principal suppliers of steel in the Island. In the sameway that one ortwo residents near the harbourhave complained about the noiseof port operations, thereis serious concern that complaints from residents of the new estate could detrimentally curtail the operations of the company.
14. A numberof the community facilities that made the site attractive (due to reduced vehicle trips) have gone (SandybrookParade used to have a corner shop', a hairdresser and a laundry – these have all been replaced by a stationers, and the BritanniaPubisbeingdeveloped into apartments).
15. T h ere are a whole variety of design issues associated with the site, but these are a matter for the Department. However, for example, all of the earlier proposalshadno garages (estimated area147 ft2or

13.72  m2), with the developer providing the alternative of a small garden shed (approximately 34  ft2 or

3.2  m2) to cope with the general clobber that comes with family living and children. The homes themselves are just above the minimum standards.

16. U l timately the mainconcern can be summarisedas the sheersizeof the development. TheParishes and the residents had already expressedsignificantconcerns at 97 units. They were aghast at proposals for 150 homes. A development smaller than that proposed in the present application would provide a better quality of life for the new residentsof the estate; it could be moved further away from Jersey Steeland the areasproneto flooding, andwould have less of a traffic impact. Evenon a smaller estate the requisite proportions offirst-timebuyer homes and social rented homes can be retained, and this mayalso allow the Minister to enforce his viewsondesign, spatial requirementsand all the other elements that could improve the design of this estate and its approachtowards sustainability.
17. D e tailed understanding of the problems of the site could not have been reached by the Housewhen it accepted the development principle in the IslandPlan. Inadditionmemberscouldnot have envisaged the concernsofresidentsandhow they feel they have beentreated.The (draft) Strategic Plan specifically refers to engagement with thePublicasbeing one of the issues that needs to beaddressed. I believe that by supporting this proposition wecanbegin the slow process of reconstructing the Public belief in this Assembly. I hopeyou will understandthe reasons for bringing this proposition, the logic behind it, and trust you will support it.
18. T h ere are no manpower implications arising  from  this  proposition. There are no obvious financial implications arising from this proposition. Anyother financial implications will depend upon the actions of the Planning Departmentand the outcomeofanysubsequent proposition and debate.