Fields 848, 851 and 853, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence - Committee of Inquiry

STATES OF JERSEY

r

FIELDS 848, 851 AND 853, BEL ROYAL, ST.  LAWRENCE: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Lodged au Greffe on 2nd April 2007 by the Connétable of St. Lawrence

STATES GREFFE

( a ) t o establish a Committee of Inquiry in accordance with Standing Order 146 in order to

investigate –

( i ) th e process and rationale of rezoning Fields 848,851, 853, and 854, Bel Royal,

St.  Lawrence as identified in policy H2 of the Island Plan 2002 (and including Fields 861, 862A and 863A);

(i i ) t h e p resent demand for the type of houses proposed under the scheme set out in the most

recent planning application for the fields;

(i ii ) t h e e ffectiveness of the depth of analysis and review performed by States' Departments in

assessing the suitability of the fields rezoned;

(i v ) t h e effectiveness of the Planning and Environment Department in independent

consideration and assessment of the developer's proposals;

(v ) t h e e ffectiveness of the consideration by the Planning and Environment Department of the

submissions and documentation of the developer in meeting the terms of the development brief and/or the Island Plan 2002 specifically to include statements contained in paragraphs 8.69 to 8.73 of the Island Plan 2002;

( v i) t h e status of the development brief and its relationship with separate statements in the

Island Plan 2002;

(v i i) t h e i mpact of the proposed development upon the infrastructure of the West of the Island in

matters such as schools, roads, traffic, drains and existing flood plains;

(v i ii ) a n y other matters which are shown to be relevant during the period of inquiry.

(b ) to request the Minister for Planning and Environment to suspend consideration or determination of

any existing or new planning applications in respect of this site pending the results of the inquiry.

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. LAWRENCE

1. I t i s with extreme reluctance that I bring this proposition to the Assembly, and in no wayshould it be regarded as a criticism of the present Minister for Planning and Environment.
2. A  s members will recall they adopted P.48/2006which I brought(with the full backing ofboth of the Deputies of St.  Lawrence and the Deputy ofSt. Peter), whichrequested the Minister for Planning and Environment –

to b r in g f o r ward 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 pa 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".

3. A  s members will beawarethe Minister has not formally brought back anamendment to the Island Plan, but he does appeartohavebeenmindfulof the States' decisions in determining applications so far.
4. F o r easeof reference I attach a copyof the original proposition and report (at  Appendix A),which outline many of therelevant details surrounding this site, and the conclusions from the Minister's report of 2nd August2006, outlining the 5  reasons for rejecting the application of that year(Appendix B).
5. I a m mindful that a Scrutiny review mightbean alternative wayof dealing with this matter, andwhen considering this matter, membersmay prefer to request this route. However I am fully aware that Scrutiny already has a full agendaofwork, and I would not wish todivertresources from their presentscheduleon to yet another matter of importance.
6. S i n ce the date of the lodging of P.48/2006, a number of matters have arisen which to me have served to demonstrate the lack ofdepthof consideration ofvarious matters connectedto this development: for example –

(i ) T h e location of a proposed pumping station on part of Le Perquage which appears to be protected

by covenant.

(i i) T h e discovery by the Environment Scrutiny Panel that the Development Brief appears not to have

been properly authorised.

( ii i) T he statement (in respect of revised traffic assessments) by the Minister of Transport and

Technical Services that "I can confirm that estimates of the predicted effect of the recent housing developments on those roads listed (in a written question raised by Deputy Le Fondré on 5th December 2006) have not previously been undertaken".

(i v ) T h e continued concern of the Health Protection Unit (see Appendix  C).

(v ) T h e recent public concerns expressed by the Minister as to the level of the development on this

site.

7. T h e Minister is constrained by law as to the matters he can properly consider in determining the application, andit appears legally difficult for him to challenge the natureof this development even when he has publicly expressed reservationsaboutsizeof the schemeandwhether the site is appropriate for the number of housesproposedunder the Jersey Island Plan 2002.
8. M e mbers will beaware that there is considerable publicconcernabout this development, not just from direct neighbours of the site. Inmy opinion it would beappropriate for a full and transparent enquiry to be held into this developmentand the rationale for adopting this site beforeit is determined. 170 letters of objection were received by the Departmentin respect of this latest application.

9. G  iv enthe effort generally involved in submitting an objection to a planning application,itismy view that this high level of objections remains indicative of the far wider public concern over this development.
10. O b jectors continue toconsider that the reasons for rejecting 129  unitsofaccommodationon this site are equally applicable to 102 units, and are dismayed that the Minister appears to be procedurally inhibited from considering this matter further.
11. E q ually,it is in the interests ofthedevelopertohave the application determinedwithin a reasonable period oftime.
12. T h e most recentamendments to the plansweresubmittedon12th March 2007. The Public Hearing into this matterwas held on 20th March 2007. I will be asking the Assemblytoconsider this matteras speedily as possible, hopefully on 17th April2007, and theAssembly will note that I have askedfor the Committee toconsider this matter inasurgent a manneras possible. It therefore should notunreasonably impinge upon the rights of the developer to have theirapplication determined within anappropriate period.
13. I r eiterate the pointmade in my previous report and proposition that there is a strong level of public disquiet over the rationale of this developmentand the methodbywhich the present application hasbeen arrived at. I hope members will continue to understand the reasons for bringing this proposition,and will show the samelevelof support as they did in respect of P.48/2006.

Financial and manpower statement

There will be costs involved in carrying out a public inquiry, but such is the public concern over this issue, I believe the public will accept that it will be money well spent.

The costs will depend upon the level of officer support required. I would consider that seconding an officer on a part-time basis should cost in the region of £10,000 for the period of the enquiry, and I consider that a prudent provision for sundry expenditure of £5,000 would be appropriate.

APPENDIX A

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

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

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 Félard are projected to increaseby 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.

Extract from Bel Royal Development Review – August 2006, report of the Minister for Planning and Environment

4. DECISION

4.1 After a careful appraisal of the application and the relevant material planning considerations, I have decided to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Overdevelopment

The proposed housing development would be an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site, contrary to the indication of yield included in the Island Plan, resulting in a development which is harmful to the character and amenity of the area and which will lead to unacceptable problems of traffic generation, contrary to Policies H8 and G2 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002.

Site Boundary

The proposed housing development extends beyond the boundaries of the site zoned for Category A' housing purposes and encroaches into an area identified as Important Open Space', contrary to Island Plan Policies H2 and BE8.

Education

There is unreasonably inadequate capacity in the local States schools at Bel Royal Primary School and Les Quennevais Secondary School to accommodate the likely increase in the number of school aged children in their catchment areas generated as a consequence of the proposed development.

Noise Impact

The future occupants of the proposed housing development are likely to be exposed to unacceptable noise nuisance from the operations conducted at the nearby premises of Jersey Steel Co. (1935) Ltd due to its proximity and the failure of the applicants to demonstrate their ability to make adequate provision for noise mitigation.

Design

The design of the proposed new housing development is unacceptable in that it fails to adequately reflect relevance to Jersey, particularly in terms of form and architectural details; is insufficiently spacious; and would present an unsatisfactory appearance, detrimental to the character of the area; contrary to Policy G3 of the Jersey Island Plan, 2002. and the published Design Principles' of the Minister for Planning and Environment.

Senator Freddie Cohen 2nd August 2006

MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT STATES OF JERSEY