Field 530A: re-designation as a Green Zone site.

STATES OF JERSEY

FIELD 530A: RE-DESIGNATION AS A GREEN ZONE SITE

Lodged au Greffe on 21st May 2010

by Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour

STATES GREFFE

2010   Price code: B  P.62 (re-issue)

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to request the Minister for Planning and Environment not to approve any development in Field 530A, St. Saviour and, subject to the results of the consultation process, to take the necessary steps to bring forward for approval a revision to the Island Plan 2002, or to make provision in the new Island Plan, to provide that Field 530A be rezoned as part of the Green Zone.

DEPUTY R.G. LE HÉRISSIER OF ST. SAVIOUR

REPORT

Introduction

Field 530A is a small field of 3.07 vergées (5,527m2) which abuts onto the JMMB (Jersey Milk Marketing Board) site at Five Oaks and which forms part of the land sold to Dandara.

Although it forms part of the old Jersey Dairy site it was used until comparatively recently for the grazing of cattle.

Although the field had been infilled and, in the process, gained a covering of top soil, this had not stopped its use as grazing land.

There is some debate about whether it was originally intended to be part of the "industrial"  site  and,  as  such,  should  be  treated  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Dairy complex.

In Planning terms, it is classified as Countryside Zone.

Although the Minister for Planning and Environment can make a decision on this land without reference to the States, it should be borne in mind that any change to the Island Plan requires the approval of the States. In what strikes the writer as odd, this field can be re-designated for building on the sole decision of the Minister.

Current situation

Dandara Ltd. have received permission for the building of 65 houses on the main Jersey  Dairy  site  but  are  looking  to  extend  this  number  by  building  on  part  of Field 530A.

There has been a design submitted which sees Field 530A as integral to the overall design and, while it is not intended to build over the whole of Field 530A the portion not built over will be integrated as amenity space for the estate.

Why are residents opposing this extension into Field 530A? The context

Five Oaks is a heavily-developed area and it is now a question of fighting rearguard actions to preserve open spaces. Perhaps a MasterPlan might have stopped the urban blight and associated issues like incessant traffic, but that hope is long past.

While it would be wonderful to have a well-designed mixture of rural and urban, the stage has now been reached of "Custer's last stand". This means protecting the few remaining green enclaves to the fullest possible extent. There is also the associated threat of "Planning Creep".

Once a chunk of the field is built over, it will be very difficult to resist pressure for building over the remaining part on the grounds that a truncated field is no longer viable.

Nimbyism

Is this just another case of a rural parish, or the rural part of a Parish, protecting its back yard?. Hardly. Just "down the road" at Chasse Brunet there is to be a very large over-55s Housing Development – the "contribution" of the parish to the quest of the Minister for Housing for housing to which people can downsize. Currently, there are 178 units planned for the site as well as a Dementia and Nursing Block.

The main Dairy Site has gained approval for 65 houses – just these 2 developments will be adding considerable traffic to the area.

The site – a green field or an integral part of an industrial site?

The field has been owned for some time by the JMMB and it is argued that it could have been used for expansion of the Jersey Dairy site.

However, it is classified as Countryside Zone and, until very recently, had cows grazing upon it.

It appears to have come late into the picture as part of the Housing Scheme.

Given that it is now proposed to designate land only as Green Zone and to drop the Countryside  category,  this  would  likely  end  up  as  Green  Zone  and,  presumably, remain untouched by development.

The nature of the design

It has been strongly argued that by adding the field to the main development, it enables the design to be much  more open and to incorporate a green vista. The proposal calls for about 8 homes to be placed on the field and the portion which remains "green" to be used as amenity space. Furthermore, if the field is used, a green space can be incorporated into the main site.

Unless density is changed, we have been told that if the development were to be restricted to the main site, it would be "inward looking".

Precedent

There is one active application to build car parking spaces and turning space on a field adjacent to a Lodging House which is also part of Field 530 and currently the subject of a Planning Application (Planning 2010/0470).

The writer knows of at least one further application which is likely to be made for housing also on Field 530. The field-owners could rightfully argue that a precedent has been set.

It is so easy to say that one small field no longer matters given the urban density of the area. Sadly, it is this attitude that has brought us to this unhappy situation.

Conclusion

To some this seems to be a small field of doubtful agricultural value which could usefully be incorporated into the main development. The questions have to be asked of why the site has been suddenly extended, why the design (admittedly good) can only work with the addition of the field, and how the Minister aims to argue that this is not a precedent with serious implications.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications, other than (should this proposition succeed) the reprocessing of a planning application.

_____________________________________________________________________ Re-issue Note

This Projet is re-issued because the proposer has made amendments to the text of the Report.

APPENDIX