The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
2011 Island Plan: interim review
Schedule of amendments to the initial draft revised Island Plan 2011 March 2014
Introduction
The Minister for Planning and Environment has considered all of the representations made in relation to the proposed revision of the 2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013). His initial response to these representations is set out in the Minister's response to consultation volumes 1 and 2 (November 2013).
The Minister has now also had regard to the Planning Inspectors report (February 2014) following the Examination in Public (EiP) and this document sets out:
- the differences between the Minister's original proposals to amend the 2011 Island Plan (published as the 2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013)) and the revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014), which the Minister is to lodge in the States;
- together with a reasoned justification;
- for each change; and
- each point on which the Minister has not accepted a recommendation in the inspectors' report.
Department of the Environment March 2014
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
A National Park for Jersey
Bay, in 2011.
The Coastal Plain of St Ouen's Bay: The coastal plain of Les Quennevais dune system and St Ouen's Bay Coastal Plain with its fresh and saltwater wetland and sand dune habitats supporting exceptional birdlife and wildlife, distinguished landscapes and high recreational value, comprising: B4: Quennevais Dunes B5: St Ouen's Bay Coastal Plain La Commune de Gouray: The dunes at La Commune de Gouray, which form part of the Grouville Coastal Plain character area (B1), are a remnant of the historic landscape of this area and provide an important open break in the coastline. They are also valuable in terms of biodiversity, particularly for birds. La Commune de Gouray (part of B1: Grouville Coastal Plain) Escarpment: The steep topography of the escarpment, forming a backdrop to the flat coastal plain, is a distinctive feature of the Island's landscape. On the exposed scarp slopes of St Ouen's Bay, stone walls are the characteristic field boundary. C3: St Ouen's Bay Escarpment and Valleys Cliffs and Headlands: The cliffs and heathland of the north coast and the south-western headlands with their spectacular coastal scenery and sense of wilderness, geological and geomorphological features, birdlife and exceptional habitats, archaeological sites, common land, modern fortifications and high recreational value. Also, the north-east wooded edge with its lower, gentler coastline, cut by wooded valleys and with numerous sheltered creeks and coves along the north. A1: North Coast Headland A2: South-west Headlands A3: North-east Low Wooded Edge Enclosed Valleys: The majority of the Island's broad-leaved woodland occurs on the steep valleys sides. The narrow winding lanes are a distinctive feature. Lichen-clad pink granite walls are characteristic features of the interior valleys. The freshwater streams and associated wet grassland provide important habitats. D4: North Coast Valleys (including Mourier Valley) D5: St Martin's Valleys Wolf's Caves car park and former cafe/bar Cliff Edge with Deep Sea: | A National Park for Jersey Parts of the Jersey coast and countryside are of national and international importance. St Ouen's Bay has long been so recognised and subject to safeguarding policies since1968. These were superseded by the more extensive designation of a Coastal National Park in 2011. Its boundary embraces all those parts of the Island of highly sensitive and valuable landscape quality, vulnerable to change and damage, which warrant the highest level of protection against development. Its extent was informed by the Countryside Character Appraisal (1999) and includes: The Coastal Plain of St Ouen's Bay: The coastal plain of Les Quennevais dune system and St Ouen's Bay Coastal Plain with its fresh and saltwater wetland and sand dune habitats supporting exceptional birdlife and wildlife, distinguished landscapes and high recreational value, comprising: B4: Quennevais Dunes B5: St Ouen's Bay Coastal Plain La Commune de Gouray: The dunes at La Commune de Gouray, which form part of the Grouville Coastal Plain character area (B1), are a remnant of the historic landscape of this area and provide an important open break in the coastline. They are also valuable in terms of biodiversity, particularly for birds. La Commune de Gouray (part of B1: Grouville Coastal Plain) Escarpment: The steep topography of the escarpment, forming a backdrop to the flat coastal plain, is a distinctive feature of the Island's landscape. On the exposed scarp slopes of St Ouen's Bay, stone walls are the characteristic field boundary. C3: St Ouen's Bay Escarpment and Valleys Cliffs and Headlands: The cliffs and heathland of the north coast and the south-western headlands with their spectacular coastal scenery and sense of wilderness, geological and geomorphological features, birdlife and exceptional habitats, archaeological sites, common land, modern fortifications and high recreational value. Also, the north-east wooded edge with its lower, gentler coastline, cut by wooded valleys and with numerous sheltered creeks and coves along the north. A1: North Coast Headland A2: South-west Headlands A3: North-east Low Wooded Edge Enclosed Valleys: The majority of the Island's broad-leaved woodland occurs on the steep valleys sides. The narrow winding lanes are a distinctive feature. Lichen-clad pink granite walls are characteristic features of the interior valleys. The freshwater streams and associated wet grassland provide important habitats. D4: North Coast Valleys (including Mourier Valley) D5: St Martin's Valleys Wolf's Caves car park and former cafe/bar Cliff Edge with Deep Sea: F1: North and South-west Cliffs Offshore Reefs and Islands: The whole area of offshore reefs and islets forms one main character type: H1: Les Écréhous (including the Paternosters and Dirouilles) H2: Le Plateau des Minquiers | Inspectors' recommendation: form and layout that subject to our more detailed recommendations and illustrative revisions, in the interests of increased clarity and consistency of decision making the Minister progresses the form and layout of Policy NE6 and its preamble along the lines set out in his Proposed revision. Inspectors' report: Could the Policy and/or its preamble text be made more succinct without loss of clarity? 3.40 We consider that there is scope to do so, though only to a modest degree given the Policy's undoubted importance, the complexity and sensitivity of its topic coverage and our preference to see it justified and clarified only in one place, within the Plan. Duplication is unavoidable if the preamble is to be structured around development categories. However, provided that it is viewed more as a reference source, where users dip into a section relevant to their proposal, rather than as a narrative piece of prose, we do not see the preamble as over-long for its purpose. Minister's response This recommendation has been accepted by the Minister and changes to the form and layout of the pre-amble and policy have been made accordingly. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
F1: North and South-west Cliffs Offshore Reefs and Islands: The whole area of offshore reefs and islets forms one main character type: H1: Les Écréhous (including the Paternosters and Dirouilles) H2: Le Plateau des Minquiers
Residential
Extension of a dwelling
| The Coastal National Park's primary purposes are:
The purpose of planning policy in the Coastal National Park is to provide the highest level of protection against development in support of these primary purposes. It is acknowledged that the National Park is a living landscape, containing buildings and land uses. Whilst there is the strongest presumption against new uses or buildings that would detract from its landscape character, there may be opportunity to secure the repair and restoration of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage through exceptions where the development of existing buildings or land uses provide opportunities to repair or reduce their existing harm to landscape character. Development may also provide opportunities for public understanding and enjoyment of the Park. There is also a need to provide for the reasonable expectation of residents to improve their homes and businesses to undertake economic activity and provide employment, having regard to the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development without harm. Accordingly, Policy NE6 sets a strong presumption but not an absolute moratorium against development within the Park: the key test is the capacity of the site and its context to accommodate development without harm to landscape character. This is the starting point for the consideration of development proposals. The following categories may, exceptionally, be considered though not all cases will be acceptable. Residential It would be unreasonable to resist all forms of development to improve people's homes. The following forms of development related to residential land use and buildings may be permitted as exceptions to the strong presumption against development here, but only where it does not cause harm to landscape character: Extension of a dwelling The acceptability of an extension to a dwelling will be determined by its scale, design and impact on landscape character. Each case should be assessed on its merits and, in particular, regard had | Inspectors' report: objective criteria 3.19On the whole we see the greater degree of objectivity, stopping short of prescriptive criteria, as a desirable (though no stronger than that) policy progression. For example, the proposed requirements 1 a – e (recorded at Annexe 1 below) for residential extensions are more objectively based when compared to the equivalent single criterion 1 (similarly recorded) in the extant Policy. They provide a clear steer against excessive enlargements but stop short of rigidly prescribing numerical or percentage limits, which might well risk a tick- box approach, losing sight of resulting impacts. 3.23since their own home is a part of and contributes to the character and appearance of the CNP, it must justifiably be subject to the same safeguarding policies. The cumulative enlargement of existing dwellings, and associated |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Redevelopment of existing dwellings and ancillary residential buildings or structures
Creation of new households
Extension of domestic curtilage
| to the sensitivity of the site, relative to the capacity of the landscape character area to accept change. The design and scale of any extension must remain subservient to the existing dwelling and not disproportionately increase its size in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact. The purpose will be a material consideration and should not facilitate a significant increase in occupancy. Intensification of domestic use would place more pressure upon a fragile environment, limited infrastructure and services and be likely to increase trip generation. The cumulative enlargement of existing dwellings, and associated increases in resident population and activity, can undermine an area's character as much as new homes: a site's planning history will, therefore, be a material consideration. Redevelopment of existing dwellings and ancillary residential buildings or structures The principle of demolition and replacement of existing dwellings is supported only where demonstrable environmental gains can be delivered. Comprehensive proposals of this type can offer the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of: reduced visual scale, mass and volume of a building; more sensitive and sympathetic siting and design; materials, colours and finishes more sensitive to the character area. In all cases, replacement buildings should not be larger than that being replaced in terms of any of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact, and should not facilitate a significant increase in occupancy. Intensification of domestic use would place more pressure upon a fragile environment, limited infrastructure and services and be likely to increase trip generation. Creation of new households The creation of new households by the development of new dwellings or the extension of existing residential properties to provide independent accommodation will be strongly resisted. Similarly, extensions which, due to their layout are tantamount to the creation of a separate dwelling by, for example, including sleeping, bathroom and living space will be regarded as having the potential to accommodate a separate household and will be similarly resisted, as counter to the strategic objectives of the Plan (in relation to sustainable patterns of development; reducing the need to travel; and reducing dependence on the private car), as well as challenging the strong presumption against development in the Coastal National Park with potentially serious implications for harm to its landscape character. Extension of domestic curtilage There is the strongest presumption against extensions of domestic curtilages, which can have an impact on the sense of wilderness, isolation and remoteness that are important in parts of the National Park. Incremental loss and erosion of landscape character to domestication would seriously undermine the quality and cohesion of landscape character. | increases in resident population and activity, would undermine the area's open character as surely would wholly new housing. 3.24We see nothing inequitable, much less any conflict with human rights legislation, in policy aimed at curbing the degree of enlargement of existing dwellings within the CNP, where very few, if any, new dwellings are likely to be authorised. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: objective criteria (see above as per comments in relation to extensions plus) 3.29we do not accept that the Proposed revision makes an unjustified distinction between house extensions and replacement dwellings. The provision for extending an existing house, itself subject to a number of important caveats, represents an altogether lesser degree of intervention in the CNP – a much smaller exception to the strongest presumption against any form of development – than would a completely new house, even one built to replace another. Inherently a proposal to replace an existing dwelling implies that the outcome is perceived as providing a better home than that being replaced and we see no justification for making a further exception allowing it to be larger. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: multi-generational homes in CNP 3.28We do not support a policy provision to allow multi-generational dwellings: a "dower" dwelling or more prosaically a "granny" annexe. We understand the motivation for this suggestion, but even if eventually reintegrated with the main dwelling the outcome would add both to the quantum of built development and likely level of residential occupation within the CNP, in clear conflict with the purposes of designation. Ownership of a home in the CNP should not carry with it an expectation of substantial additional development, in effect according rights that would not be countenanced to anyone seeking to move to the CNP from elsewhere Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Employment land use and buildings
Extension and intensification of use
Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for the same employment use
| Employment land use and buildings The Coastal National Park arises from the interaction of human and natural influences: the economic history of the Island, together with political and social influences, has been instrumental in shaping the landscape that we find today. The Park remains a working environment in many places with uses and buildings performing employment and economic functions. Economic growth and diversification are Plan objectives and Policies SP5, E1 and ERE1 seek to safeguard existing employment land and premises. The following forms of development related to employment land use and buildings may be permitted as exceptions to the strong presumption against development, but only where it does not cause harm to landscape character: Extension and intensification of use The sensitivity of landscape character will be the primary consideration in the assessment of development proposals to extend or intensify existing employment land uses or buildings in the Coastal National Park, including tourism and agricultural uses. A case will need to be made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required for the proposal, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. The acceptability of an extension to an employment building will be determined by its scale, design and its impact on landscape character. Each case will be assessed on its merits and, in particular, regard had to the sensitivity of the site, relative to the capacity of the landscape character area to accept change. In all cases, the design and scale of any extension must remain subservient to the existing building. There is a strong presumption against new ancillary buildings in the Coastal National Park. Any proposal that would intensify an existing employment use will need to be assessed having regard to additional travel and traffic, at a strategic level, and noise and disturbance locally, particularly where the outcome could adversely affect the Park's sense of wilderness, isolation and remoteness. The cumulative enlargement of existing buildings, and associated increases in activity, can undermine an area's character as much as new buildings: a site's planning history will, therefore, be a material consideration. Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for the same employment use The principle of redevelopment, involving demolition and replacement, of existing employment buildings for the same employment use is supported where demonstrable environmental gains can be delivered. Comprehensive proposals of this type can offer the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character, which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of: reduced visual scale, mass and volume of a building; more sensitive and sympathetic siting and design; materials, colours and finishes more sensitive to landscape character. |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
by the delivery of environmental gains including some or all of; a reduction in the visual scale, mass and volume of a building; more sensitive and sympathetic consideration of its siting and design; and/or the use of materials, colours and finishes which are more sensitive to the character area.
Change of use: conversion to other employment use
Change of use: conversion to residential or other non-employment use
| Replacement buildings should be no larger, in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than that being replaced. Consideration will also be given to the intensity of use and impact of travel, traffic and noise upon the Park's special character. Change of use: conversion to other employment use The change of use of employment land and buildings (involving conversion of a building), to other employment uses, will need to satisfy the requirements of Policy E1: Protection of employment land in the first instance. A case will also need to be made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required for the proposal, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. Any proposal that would intensify employment use will need to be assessed having regard to additional travel and traffic, at a strategic level, and noise and disturbance locally, particularly where the outcome could adversely affect the Park's sense of wilderness, isolation and remoteness. Any visual implications will also be carefully considered having regard to landscape character. Change of use: conversion to residential or other non-employment use There is a strong presumption against the loss of employment land and buildings to residential and other non-employment use. The conversion of modern agricultural buildings and glasshouses to residential or other non-employment uses will not be permitted. New homes and other development in the Coastal National Park, where the availability of services, amenities and public infrastructure is generally limited does little to contribute towards the attainment of a more sustainable pattern of development. Conversion of an employment building to residential use is, therefore, most unlikely to be permitted. Proposals may, exceptionally, be viewed more favourably where the redundancy of employment use is proven (under the requirements of Policy E1) or where the proposal involves the conversion of offices and tourism accommodation; and where it delivers demonstrable environmental benefits through reduced intensity of use and visual improvement to the building and its setting. Former hotels proposed for residential conversion will be expected to secure significantly reduced intensity of use, since permission is likely to have been granted for hotel use, and/or an expansion of either an original residential or hotel use, on a site where permission for a large extent of residential development would not normally have been countenanced. Sustainability at a strategic level will be a material consideration and require evidence of how this has been assessed, such as a comparison of reliance on public infrastructure and trip generation. Such development would also need to deliver other environmental gains such as: enhanced appearance of the building; materials, colours and finishes more | Inspectors' report: conversion of employment bldgs. to non-employment use 3.25The existing NE6 includes a "strong presumption against the use of commercial buildings for purposes other than that which permission was originally granted." The only, qualified, exception regarding re-use (as distinct from replacement) refers solely to "an employment-related purpose in support of the agricultural industry or rural economy." 3.26we recognise the strength of the National Trust's concerns: rather than simply responding to circumstances, the likely disparity in monetary value between a potentially redundant commercial building and its residential use within the CNP could prove the catalyst to such applications. The policy provision might induce an owner to look less diligently for future commercial occupants of premises. This would be inconsistent with the generally restrictive approach to residential development within the CNP, where additional households and associated domestic activity would threaten the very character that led to its designation, and also with Plan aims generally to safeguard employment land and buildings. Inspectors' Recommendation: that the Minister does not introduce any less stringent policy than exists now with regard to changes of existing buildings to residential uses within the Coastal National Park Minister's response The Minister has considered, very carefully, the representations made and the Inspectors' recommendation in relation to his proposed amendment to consider, as a potential exception, the change of use of employment buildings to non- employment use in the CNP. The Minister remains of the view, however, that the proposed policy change is |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
assessed. This might include comparison of the input of each use upon public infrastructure and could include, for example, the comparison of the trip- generation of a former hotel against the intensity of use of that proposed.
Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for other employment or non-employment use
a significant reduction in visual mass, scale and volume - this might be achieved by a reduction in the mass and scale of buildings in the landscape. Opportunities may arise to remove uncharacteristically large buildings - such as hotels or other tourism related buildings - from the landscape, through their redevelopment and replacement with lesser buildings, in terms of their gross floorspace, building footprint or height, that are more sympathetic to the character of the area and which sit better in the landscape. a significant reduction in intensity of use - any permission for redevelopment for residential use will only be permitted where the residential yield is extremely limited and the Minister would expect to secure significant reductions in the level of floorspace and/or occupancy to reduce the intensity of the use of the building; The sustainability of a proposal at a strategic level will be a material consideration and the Minister will require evidence to show how this has been assessed: a net reduction in demand/impact should be secured by any redevelopment scheme. This might include comparison of the input of each use upon public infrastructure and could include, for example, the comparison of the trip-generation of a former hotel against the intensity of use of that proposed. more sensitive and sympathetic consideration of siting and design: | sensitive to the character area; and landscaping to enhance and repair the setting of existing buildings. Careful regard will be given to the visual impacts of any required external space, in particular car parking and amenity areas, on landscape character. Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for other employment or non-employment use The principle of allowing the redevelopment, involving demolition and replacement for alternative uses, including other employment uses, of existing employment buildings is supported where significant environmental gains can be delivered. Such proposals will need to satisfy the requirements of Policy E1: Protection of employment land in the first instance, and a case made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. The Minister acknowledges that managing an exception to the strong presumption against any development in the Coastal National Park is challenging, and that it is important to be clear about the benefits that any such development proposal might bring. Comprehensive development of this type offers the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character of the area, which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of;
for residential use will be permitted only where the residential yield is extremely limited and secures significant reductions in floorspace and/or occupancy;
consideration and require evidence of how this has been assessed, such as a comparison of reliance on public infrastructure and trip generation.
| subject to a number of tests – which provided some comfort to the Inspectors - and that any such proposal would only be countenanced where environmental benefits, which contributed to the repair of the CNP, were delivered, including a reduction in the intensity of their use and visual improvements. On this basis, he proposes to proceed with his proposed change to the policy, as intended. Further amendment has been made to clarify that this potential exception does not apply to modern agricultural buildings or glasshouses. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
- there is ample evidence of poorly sited and designed buildings and additions to buildings, around the Island's coastline. Redevelopment offers the opportunity to recreate a more sympathetic development in the landscape and the Minister would expect new buildings to reflect the principles of good design, as set out in the Jersey Design Guide(22). Buildings must, in particular demonstrate an understanding of context - they must be mindful of it and respectful of it, particularly where they are sited in a sensitive landscape context; a more sensitive use of materials: - this may be achieved by reflecting the distinctiveness of the character area in the form, materials and finishes, including colour, of the building.
because of their importance to agriculture: if they are no longer required for agricultural purposes they should be removed or re-used for agriculture or employment-related uses, but only where any new use would not detract from the character of the Coastal National Park.
Cultural and tourism uses
the Minister to ensure that new or extended cultural and tourism development in the Coastal National Park is sensitive and proportionate to the fragility and vulnerability of the landscape within which it might take place.
| form, materials and finishes, including colour. Replacement buildings should be no larger, in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than that being replaced. Consideration will also be given to the intensity of use and impact of travel, traffic and noise upon the Park's special character. Regard will also be had to opportunities to support the purposes of the Park including enhanced public access and addressing management threats and priorities identified in the Countryside Character Appraisal. The redevelopment of modern agricultural buildings by demolition and replacement for another use will not be supported, since these would have been permitted to meet agricultural need. If no longer so required they should be removed or re- used for agriculture or employment-related uses. Similarly, the redevelopment of glasshouses will not be permitted. Cultural and tourism uses One of the Park's purposes, to promote opportunities for understanding and enjoyment of its special qualities, is likely to create tensions with its other purpose: the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. Managing this requires that new or extended cultural and tourism development is sensitive and proportionate to the fragility and vulnerability of its landscape setting. The Countryside Character Appraisal is a valuable tool, identifying development and management threats to the each of the Park's character areas and their capacity for change. It can be used to inform decisions on development proposals and implications for subsequent use of different parts of the Park. Given the strong presumption against development in the Coastal National Park any exceptions related to new or extended cultural and tourism attractions must have very limited impact on its relevant landscape character area. Examples might include proposals based on the use and enjoyment of environmental and heritage assets, and likely to relate to informal recreation, leisure and tourism. Interpretative facilities and access infrastructure proposals will be considered favourably where designed to minimise visual impact and having no undue effects on sensitive environmental or heritage assets. Similarly, proposals involving a change of use of land to enable activity-based tourism and leisure pursuits will be considered relative to their impacts upon the sensitivity of environmental and heritage assets, as well as the implications of greater levels of more active use of land within the National Park, where the qualities of remoteness and peacefulness may be particularly |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
assets.
Minor development
Proposal 4a: Restrict permitted development rights in the Coastal National Park The Minister for Planning and Environment will further explore the restriction of permitted development rights in the Coastal National Park in order to better protect its fragile and sensitive landscape character. This will include consultation with stakeholders on any proposed changes to the Planning and Building (General Development) Order.
| significant. Leisure and tourism activities can generate a requirement for ancillary services and buildings and a number of facilities – such as cafés, bars, kiosks and toilets – exist in parts of the Park. Proposals to extend, intensify or redevelop existing leisure and tourism facilities will be considered as with any other employment use. New leisure and tourism buildings are unlikely to be favourably considered other than possibly small scale buildings or structures such as beach kiosks. The visual implications, infrastructure requirements and effect on the locality's intensity of the use will require careful consideration relative to the sensitivity of the landscape character. It is unlikely that they will be favourably considered where highly visible and/or unscreened by landscaping or where there are no nearby existing formal car parking and/or toilet facilities. Minor development Development of any scale can adversely affect the qualities of the Coastal National Park because of its sensitive, fragile landscape. Buildings in the Park presently have the same permitted development rights as those elsewhere; the Minister intends to limit these rights here to enable the impact of minor changes to be regulated. This will require amendment to the Planning and Building (General Development) Order and the Minister will consult further upon the nature of changes proposed. These will not be intended to prohibit all forms of minor development, which would be unreasonable and unrealistic, but to make a greater range of them subject to individual assessment. Small scale proposals, incidental to the primary use of land and buildings - such as minor alterations to existing buildings, swimming pools, driveways and other forms of hard landscaping, accesses, means of enclosure, signs, flags and other advertisements, satellite dishes and other antennae - will be permissible but only if well designed and sited and their impact does not harm the character of the area. For the avoidance of doubt, there will remain a strong presumption against the development of new ancillary buildings in the Coastal National Park with the exception of small incidental domestic outbuildings of a temporary nature – such as garden sheds and greenhouses – which may be permissible if well sited, and designed and where their impact does not harm landscape character. Proposal 4a: Restrict permitted development rights in the Coastal National Park The Minister for Planning and Environment will further explore the restriction of permitted development rights in the Coastal National Park in order to better protect its fragile and sensitive landscape character. This will include consultation with stakeholders on any proposed changes to the Planning and Building (General Development) Order. | Inspectors' report: ancillary bldgs 3.29the limited provision for house extensions does not, in our view, logically require also permitting the erection of separate, free-standing ancillary domestic buildings, which will generally have a greater impact within the CNP Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed largely as proposed by seeking to resist the development of ancillary buildings in the CNP. Because of the proposed removal of permitted development rights in the CNP, the Minister is, however, proposing to amend the policy further to identify the provision of small incidental domestic outbuildings that are of a temporary nature – such as garden sheds and greenhouses – where they do not harm landscape character in the CNP. Inspectors' Recommendation: removal of pd rights (3.39) that the Minister proceeds as he intends with respect to the Proposed revision Proposal to limit permitted development rights within the CNP and with a view to making planning applications that would result as a consequence to be fee exempt. Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Strategic development
| Strategic development There may emerge, during the remainder of the Plan period, strategic development proposals of Island-wide significance related to the generation of utility-scale renewable energy; the provision of public water supplies and the extraction of minerals in the Coastal National Park. Specifically, this might include utility-scale off-shore wind and/or tidal energy development; the expansion of Val de la Mare reservoir; the extension, replacement or renewal of La Rosière desalination plant and the expansion of sand quarrying in St Ouen's Bay. Any such development will likely need to be considered within the context of a full and thorough Environmental Impact Assessment to ensure that: the need is proven; alternatives have been properly identified and considered; and that environmental implications for the Park are properly identified, avoided and/or mitigated as far as possible. In accord with the Plan's sequential approach to development, consideration of alternative less environmentally sensitive locations will need to have been properly considered as part of any justification for strategic forms of development in the Coastal National Park. Any such proposals will need to be considered against Policies NR4-6: Renewable energy; MR3: New or extended mineral workings, and NR9: Utilities infrastructure facilities respectively. | Inspectors' Recommendation: strategic development (3.32) that the Minister proceeds as he intends with respect to Proposed revision paragraph 2.113 and with the consequential changes to Policy NR 9: Utilities infrastructure facilities and its preamble. Minister's response Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. |
POLICY NE6: Coastal National Park The Coastal National Park, as designated on the Proposals Map, will be given the highest level of protection from development and this will be given priority over all other planning considerations. In this area there will be the strongest presumption against all forms of new development. The Minister for Planning and Environment, however, recognises that there are existing buildings and land uses within the Coastal National Park and that
Accordingly, the following exceptions to the strong presumption against development in the Coastal National Park may be permissible where they do not cause harm to the landscape character of the area: Residential
| POLICY NE6: Coastal National Park The primary purposes of the Coastal National Park are:
In support of these purposes, the Coastal National Park, as designated on the Proposals Map, will be given the highest level of protection from development and this will normally be given priority over all other planning considerations. In this area there will be the strongest presumption against all forms of development, including but not limited to:
Only the following exceptions may be permissible, and only where they do not cause harm to landscape character: Residential 1. the extension of a dwelling, but only where:
| Inspectors' recommendation: form and layout that subject to our more detailed recommendations and illustrative revisions, in the interests of increased clarity and consistency of decision making the Minister progresses the form and layout of Policy NE6 and its preamble along the lines set out in his Proposed revision. Inspectors' report: Could the Policy and/or its preamble text be made more succinct without loss of clarity? 3.40 We consider that there is scope to do so, though only to a modest degree given the Policy's undoubted importance, the complexity and sensitivity of its topic coverage and our preference to see it justified and clarified only in one place, within the Plan. Minister's response and changes This recommendation has been accepted by the Minister and changes to the form and layout of the pre-amble and policy have been made accordingly. The Minister has made further changes to the policy as follows:
Inspectors' report: objective criteria 3.19On the whole we see the greater degree of objectivity, stopping short of prescriptive criteria, as a desirable (though no stronger than that) policy progression. For example, the proposed requirements 1 a – e (recorded at Annexe 1 below) for residential extensions are more objectively based when |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
the area by; a reduction in its visual impact; an improvement in the design and/or siting of the building and/or structure that is more sensitive to the site context and setting; or more sensitive use of materials, landscaping, or means of enclosure. For the avoidance of doubt, there will remain the strongest presumption against:
| context; c. having regard to its planning history, it does not disproportionately increase the size of the dwelling in terms of any of its gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact;
Employment
a. the requirement for a coastal or countryside location is adequately justified; b. an extension remains subservient, well related to the existing building in design and scale; c. an intensification does not create undue noise, disturbance or a significant increase in travel and trip generation; and d. it does not cause harm to landscape character.
c. it gives rise to demonstrable environmental gains, contributing to the repair and restoration of landscape character.
a. it would accord with Policy E1: Protection of employment land; b. the requirement for a coastal or countryside location can be adequately justified; and c. in the case of an intensification of use, it does not create undue noise, disturbance or a significant increase in travel and trip generation; and d. it does not harm landscape character.
| compared to the equivalent single criterion 1 (similarly recorded) in the extant Policy. They provide a clear steer against excessive enlargements but stop short of rigidly prescribing numerical or percentage limits, which might well risk a tick- box approach, losing sight of resulting impacts. 3.23since their own home is a part of and contributes to the character and appearance of the CNP, it must justifiably be subject to the same safeguarding policies. The cumulative enlargement of existing dwellings, and associated increases in resident population and activity, would undermine the area's open character as surely would wholly new housing. 3.24We see nothing inequitable, much less any conflict with human rights legislation, in policy aimed at curbing the degree of enlargement of existing dwellings within the CNP, where very few, if any, new dwellings are likely to be authorised. 3.29we do not accept that the Proposed revision makes an unjustified distinction between house extensions and replacement dwellings. The provision for extending an existing house, itself subject to a number of important caveats, represents an altogether lesser degree of intervention in the CNP – a much smaller exception to the strongest presumption against any form of development – than would a completely new house, even one built to replace another. Inherently a proposal to replace an existing dwelling implies that the outcome is perceived as providing a better home than that being replaced and we see no justification for making a further exception allowing it to be larger. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: multi-generational homes in CNP 3.28We do not support a policy provision to allow multi-generational dwellings: a "dower" dwelling or more prosaically a "granny" annexe. We understand the motivation for this suggestion, but even if eventually reintegrated with the main dwelling the outcome would add both to the quantum of built development and likely level of residential occupation within the CNP, in clear conflict with the purposes of designation. Ownership of a home in the CNP should not carry with it an expectation of substantial additional development, in effect according rights that would not be countenanced to anyone seeking to move to the CNP from elsewhere Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: conversion of commercial bldgs. to non-employment use 3.25The existing NE6 includes a "strong presumption against the use of commercial buildings for purposes other than that which permission was originally granted." The only, qualified, exception regarding re-use (as distinct from replacement) refers solely to "an employment-related purpose in support of the agricultural industry or rural economy." 3.26we recognise the strength of the National Trust's concerns: rather than simply responding to circumstances, the likely disparity in monetary value between a potentially redundant commercial building and its residential use within the CNP could prove the catalyst to such applications. The policy provision might induce an owner to look less diligently for future commercial occupants of premises. This would be inconsistent with the generally restrictive approach to residential development within the CNP, where additional households and associated domestic activity would threaten the very character |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE6: Coastal National Park – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
the area by; a reduction in the intensity of occupation and use; and, a visual improvement in the design and appearance of the land and building(s); or c. it secures a viable alternative use for a traditional farm building in accord with Policy ERE4.
For the avoidance of doubt, there will remain the strongest presumption in the Coastal National Park against:
Minor development
Strategic development
|
Minor development
Strategic development
| that led to its designation, and also with Plan aims generally to safeguard employment land and buildings. Inspectors' Recommendation: that the Minister does not introduce any less stringent policy than exists now with regard to changes of existing buildings to residential uses within the Coastal National Park Minister's response The Minister has considered, very carefully, the representations made and the Inspectors' recommendation in relation to his proposed amendment to consider, as a potential exception, the change of use of employment buildings to non- employment use in the CNP. The Minister remains of the view, however, that the proposed policy change is subject to a number of tests – which provided some comfort to the Inspectors - and that any such proposal would only be countenanced where environmental benefits, which contributed to the repair of the CNP, were delivered, including a reduction in the intensity of their use and visual improvements. On this basis, he proposes to proceed with his proposed change to the policy, as intended. Further amendment has been made to clarify that this potential exception does not apply to modern agricultural buildings or glasshouses. Inspectors' report: ancillary buildings 3.29the limited provision for house extensions does not, in our view, logically require also permitting the erection of separate, free-standing ancillary domestic buildings, which will generally have a greater impact within the CNP Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed largely as proposed by seeking to resist the development of ancillary buildings in the CNP. Because of the proposed removal of permitted development rights in the CNP, the Minister is, however, proposing to amend the policy further to identify the provision of small incidental domestic outbuildings that are of a temporary nature – such as garden sheds and greenhouses – where they do not harm landscape character in the CNP. Inspectors' Recommendation: strategic development (3.32) that the Minister proceeds as he intends with respect to Proposed revision paragraph 2.113 and with the consequential changes to Policy NR 9: Utilities infrastructure facilities and its preamble. Minister's response Minister's response The Inspectors' view is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Green Zone
The main escarpments of St Clement, Grouville , Ouaisné, and St Brelade's Bay C1: Grouville – St Saviour C2: South Coast The wooded valleys of St Peter's, Waterworks, Bellozanne, Grands Vaux, Vallée des Vaux, Fern and Queen's Valleys, amongst others; D1: Main Interior Valleys D2: Eastern Plateau Valleys D3: St Brelade's Valley The interior agricultural land: to the north, including E1: North-west Headland (St Ouen) E3: North-east (St Martin) E4: North Coast
| Green Zone The concept of the Green Zone is already well established and familiar to Island residents. The vigorous public response, in the Green Paper and Imagine Jersey 2035, to further protect the countryside from development has demonstrated a clear need to review and strengthen the existing countryside policies in order to further protect this important asset. Accordingly, in addition to the introduction of the Coastal National Park, the boundaries of the Green Zone have been extended to include those areas in what was formerly the Countryside Zone, as defined in the 2002 Island Plan. The areas of the countryside which are outside the Coastal National Park are now defined as Green Zone and includes those areas of the countryside which have an intact character and comprise an important range of environmental features needing a high level of protection. Those areas of the Island's countryside which are largely distinctive, historic, farmed landscapes and coastal plains are also now included within the Green Zone. This interior agricultural landscape covers the greater part of the plateau and part of the coastal plains. It presents a rich background including an attractive and intricate pattern of small fields, enclosures and lanes, an ecologically rich network of hedgerows, verges and banques, many cultural sites and a wealth of typical Jersey granite vernacular buildings. The ridges and skylines of the plateau are particularly sensitive to the visual impact of development. The Green Zone includes a number of distinct character areas and the Minister for Planning and Environment will have regard to the supplementary guidance contained in the Countryside Character Appraisal in determining any development proposals in this area. These areas include: The main escarpments of St Clement, Grouville , Ouaisné, and St Brelade's Bay C1: Grouville – St Saviour C2: South Coast The wooded valleys of St Peter's, Waterworks, Bellozanne, Grands Vaux, Vallée des Vaux, Fern and Queen's Valleys, amongst others; D1: Main Interior Valleys D2: Eastern Plateau Valleys D3: St Brelade's Valley The interior agricultural land: to the north, including E1: North-west Headland (St Ouen) E3: North-east (St Martin) E4: North Coast These areas are designated as Green Zone on the Proposals Map. Whilst not as remote and wild in character as the Coastal National Park there will still be a general presumption against any development in the Green Zone in order to retain the quality and distinctiveness of the Island's countryside here and to ensure that the distinct character of the zone remains intact. The quality and distinctiveness of the landscape character areas of the Green Zone still makes them sensitive to the effects of intrusive development whilst having a greater capacity to accept some change. As in the Coastal National Park, however, the Green Zone is even more of a living landscape, containing a greater number and variety of buildings and land uses. Whilst there is a presumption against new uses or buildings that would detract from its landscape character, there may be opportunity to secure the repair and restoration of it through exceptions where the development of existing | Inspectors' recommendations: form and layout (3.46) that subject to our more detailed recommendations and illustrative revisions with respect to Policy NE6 and its preamble, in the interests of consistency of approach, and increased clarity and consistency of decision making, the Minister progresses the form and layout of Policy NE7 and its preamble along the lines set out in his Proposed revision. (3.54) that the Minister proceeds along the lines set out in the Proposed revision but considers making Policy NE7 and its preamble more succinct following similar principles to those outlined in paragraph 3.41 and illustrated in the annexes to this Chapter. Inspectors' report: 3.45 in light of our previous conclusion that the revised approach proposed for Policy NE 6 and its preamble would enhance the clarity of decision making within the CNP, we accept the case for adopting a broadly similar formulation in the drafting of Policy NE7 and its preamble, so that users can more readily appreciate the similarities and differences in the substance between the Plan's policies for the two defined areas of the Island. Minister's response This recommendation has been accepted by the Minister and changes to the form and layout of the pre-amble and policy have been made accordingly. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
development proposals. It will only be appropriate and acceptable to permit some forms of development as exceptions to the general presumption against development, as follows, but there may be cases where development will be unacceptable. Residential
Extension of a dwelling
Ancillary residential buildings
Redevelopment of existing dwellings and ancillary residential buildings or structures
| buildings or land uses provide opportunities to repair or reduce their existing harm to landscape character. Development may also provide opportunities for public access and enjoyment of the countryside. There is also a need to provide for the reasonable expectation of residents to improve their homes and businesses to undertake economic activity and provide employment, having regard to the capacity of the landscape to accommodate development without serious harm. Accordingly, Policy NE7 sets a presumption but not an absolute moratorium against development within the Green Zone: the key test is the capacity of the site and its context to accommodate development without serious harm to landscape character. This is the starting point for the consideration of development proposals. The following categories may, exceptionally, be considered though not all cases will be acceptable. Residential It would be unreasonable to resist all forms of development to improve people's homes. The following forms of development related to residential land use and buildings may be permitted as exceptions to the presumption against development here, but only where it does not cause serious harm to landscape character: Extension of a dwelling The acceptability of an extension to a dwelling will be determined by its scale, design and impact on landscape character. Each case should be assessed on its merits and, in particular, regard had to the sensitivity of the site, relative to the capacity of the landscape character area to accept change. The design and scale of any extension must remain subservient to the existing dwelling and not disproportionately increase its size in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact. The purpose will be a material consideration and should not facilitate a significant increase in occupancy. Intensification of domestic use would place more pressure upon a fragile environment, limited infrastructure and services and be likely to increase trip generation. The cumulative enlargement of existing dwellings, and associated increases in resident population and activity, can undermine an area's character as much as new homes: a site's planning history will, therefore, be a material consideration. Ancillary buildings Proposals to develop buildings and structures ancillary to a residential use of land, such as garages and other outbuildings (which are not in the form of extensions to the principal dwelling house) should be considered in the same manner as extensions, where the key test will be the impact upon landscape character. Proposals for the creation of habitable accommodation in detached ancillary buildings will not be supported. Redevelopment of existing dwellings and ancillary residential buildings or structures The principle of demolition and replacement of existing dwellings is | Inspectors' report: : objective criteria 3.51As with our consideration of Policy NE6, the Proposed revision moves NE7 in the direction of objective criteria but, rightly, stops short of a mechanistic reliance on specified floorspaces, building footprints or the like which might lead to undesirable outcomes in unforeseen circumstances. Concepts such as "disproportionately large" give a measure of discretion but only at the margins, and individual planning decisions will remain open to first and third party (merits based) appeals in the event that one of the parties feels aggrieved by the outcome. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: objective criteria 3.51As with respect to Policy NE6, and for similar reasons, we do not accept that the qualified exception to consider extensions to existing houses somehow |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
replacement, of existing residential buildings in the Green Zone is supported by the Minister for Planning and Environment but only where demonstrable environmental gains can be delivered.
Creation of new households
Extension of domestic curtilage
Employment land use and buildings
| supported only where demonstrable environmental gains can be delivered. Comprehensive proposals of this type can offer the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of: reduced visual scale, mass and volume of a building; more sensitive and sympathetic siting and design; materials, colours and finishes more sensitive to the character area. In all cases, replacement buildings should not be larger than that being replaced in terms of any of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact, and should not facilitate a significant increase in occupancy. Intensification of domestic use would place more pressure upon a fragile environment, limited infrastructure and services and be likely to increase trip generation. Creation of new households The creation of new households by the development of new dwellings or the extension of existing residential properties to provide independent accommodation will generally be resisted in the Green Zone: it is counter to the strategic objectives of the Plan (in relation to sustainable patterns of development; reducing the need to travel; and reducing dependence on the private car), as well as challenging the general presumption against development. In some instances it may, however, be possible to make exception to permit the extension or conversion of part of a dwelling (such as an integral garage) to provide independent accommodation in the Green Zone for an elderly relative or a relative who requires some degree of care and/or support for their personal well-being and health. This will, however, only be permissible where the accommodation is capable of re-integration into the main dwelling and where any extension or conversion would not seriously harm landscape character. Any exception made in response to such family circumstances will need to be carefully regulated and may be subject to a planning obligation agreement to ensure the ultimate re-integration of the accommodation into the main dwelling. The Green Zone contains most of the Island's working countryside and the only other possible exception to the presumption against the creation of new households here may relate to the provision of staff and key agricultural workers' accommodation, in accordance with Policy H9. Extension of domestic curtilage There is the strongest presumption against extensions of domestic curtilages, which can result in incremental loss and erosion of landscape character to domestication in the countryside. Employment land use and buildings The Green Zone arises from the interaction of human and natural influences: the economic history of the Island, together with political and social influences, has been instrumental in shaping the landscape that we find today. The countryside remains a working environment in many places with uses and buildings performing employment and economic functions. Economic growth and diversification are Plan objectives and Policies SP5, E1 and ERE1 seek to safeguard existing employment land and premises. The following forms of development related to employment land use and buildings may be permitted as exceptions to the presumption against development, but | warrants a further exception to enable a replacement dwelling (or replacement ancillary building) to be larger than that being replaced. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Minister's changes The Minister has made further proposed changes to the policy to;
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
land use and buildings that may be permitted as exceptions to the presumption against development in the Green Zone but only where it does not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area. There may be cases where such development will be unacceptable in the Green Zone. Extension and intensification of use
Ancillary employment buildings
Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for the same employment use
Replacement buildings should be no larger, in terms of gross | only where it does not cause serious harm to landscape character: Extension and intensification of use The sensitivity of landscape character will be the primary consideration in the assessment of development proposals to extend or intensify existing employment land uses or buildings in the Green Zone, including tourism and agricultural uses. A case will need to be made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required for the proposal, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. The acceptability of an extension to an employment building will be determined by its scale, design and its impact on landscape character. Each case will be assessed on its merits and, in particular, regard had to the sensitivity of the site, relative to the capacity of the landscape character area to accept change. In all cases, the design and scale of any extension must remain subservient to the existing building. Any proposal that would intensify an existing employment use will need to be assessed having regard to additional travel and traffic, at a strategic level, and noise and disturbance locally. The cumulative enlargement of existing buildings, and associated increases in activity, can undermine an area's character as much as new buildings: a site's planning history will, therefore, be a material consideration. Ancillary buildings Proposals to develop buildings and structures ancillary to an employment use of land, (which are not in the form of extensions to the principal building) should be considered in the same manner as extensions, where the key test will be the impact upon landscape character. Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for the same employment use The principle of redevelopment, involving demolition and replacement, of existing employment buildings for the same employment use is supported where demonstrable environmental gains can be delivered. Comprehensive proposals of this type can offer the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character, which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of: reduced visual scale, mass and volume of a building; more sensitive and sympathetic siting and design; materials, colours and finishes more sensitive to landscape character. Replacement buildings should be no larger, in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than that being replaced. Consideration will also be given to the intensity of use and impact of travel, traffic and noise upon the character of the area. |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
floorspace or building footprint, than the building being replaced(30). Consideration will also be given to the design of the building and, in particular, its siting, use of materials, colour and form. Change of use: conversion to other employment use
Change of use: conversion to residential or other non-employment use
| Change of use: conversion to other employment use The change of use of employment land and buildings (involving conversion of a building), to other employment uses, will need to satisfy the requirements of Policy E1: Protection of employment land in the first instance. A case will also need to be made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required for the proposal, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. Any proposal that would intensify employment use will need to be assessed having regard to additional travel and traffic, at a strategic level, and noise and disturbance locally. Any visual implications will also be carefully considered having regard to landscape character. Change of use: conversion to residential or other non-employment use There is a general presumption against the loss of employment land and buildings to residential and other non-employment use. The conversion of modern agricultural buildings and glasshouses to residential or other non- employment uses will not be permitted. New homes and other development in the Green Zone, where the availability of services, amenities and public infrastructure is generally limited does little to contribute towards the attainment of a more sustainable pattern of development. Conversion of an employment building to residential use is, therefore, most unlikely to be permitted. Proposals may, exceptionally, be viewed more favourably where the redundancy of employment use is proven (under the requirements of Policy E1) or where the proposal involves the conversion of offices and tourism accommodation; and where it delivers demonstrable environmental benefits through reduced intensity of use and visual improvement to the building and its setting. Former hotels proposed for residential conversion will be expected to secure significantly reduced intensity of use, since permission is likely to have been granted for hotel use, and/or an expansion of either an original residential or hotel use, on a site where permission for a large extent of residential development would not normally have been countenanced. Sustainability at a strategic level will be a material consideration and require evidence of how this has been assessed, such as a comparison of reliance on public infrastructure and trip generation. Such development would also need to deliver other environmental gains such as: enhanced appearance of the building; materials, colours and finishes more sensitive to the character area; and landscaping to enhance and repair the setting of existing buildings. Careful regard will be given to the visual impacts of any required external space, in particular car parking and amenity areas, on landscape character. |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for other employment or non-employment use
a significant reduction in visual mass, scale and volume - this might be achieved by a reduction in the mass and scale of buildings in the landscape. Opportunities may arise to remove uncharacteristically large buildings – such as hotels or other tourism related buildings - from the landscape, through their redevelopment and replacement with lesser buildings, in terms of their gross floorspace, building footprint or height, that are more sympathetic to the character of the area and which sit better in the landscape. a significant reduction in intensity of use - any permission for redevelopment for residential use will only be permitted where the residential yield is extremely limited and the Minister would expect to secure significant reductions in the level of floorspace and/or occupancy to reduce the intensity of the use of the building; The sustainability of a proposal at a strategic level will be a material consideration and the Minister will require evidence to show how this has been assessed: a net reduction in demand/impact should be secured by any redevelopment scheme. This might include comparison of the input of each use upon public infrastructure and could include, for example, the comparison of the trip-generation of a former hotel against the intensity of use of that proposed. more sensitive and sympathetic consideration of siting and design: - there is ample evidence of poorly sited and designed buildings and additions to buildings, around the Island's coastline. Redevelopment offers the opportunity to recreate a more sympathetic development in the landscape and the Minister would expect new buildings to reflect the principles of good design, as set out in the Jersey Design Guide(31) . Buildings must, in particular demonstrate an understanding of context - they must be mindful of it and respectful of it, particularly where they are sited in a sensitive landscape context; a more sensitive use of materials: - this may be achieved by reflecting the distinctiveness of the character area in the form, materials and finishes, including colour, of the building.
| Redevelopment of existing employment buildings for other employment or non-employment use The principle of allowing the redevelopment, involving demolition and replacement for alternative uses, including other employment uses, of existing employment buildings is supported where significant environmental gains can be delivered. Such proposals will need to satisfy the requirements of Policy E1: Protection of employment land in the first instance, and a case made as to why a coastal or countryside location is required, which may require the applicant to set out what alternative locations have been considered. The Minister acknowledges that managing an exception to a general presumption against any development in the Green Zone is challenging, and that it is important to be clear about the benefits that any such development proposal might bring. Comprehensive development of this type offers the possibility of repairing and restoring landscape character of the area, which might be achieved by environmental gains including some or all of;
Replacement buildings should be no larger, in terms of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than that being replaced. Consideration will also be given to the intensity of use and impact of travel, traffic and noise upon the character of the area. Regard will also be had to enhance public access and to address management threats and priorities for that character area. The redevelopment of modern agricultural buildings by demolition and replacement for another use will not be supported, since these would have been permitted to meet agricultural need. If no longer so required they should be removed or re- used for agriculture or employment-related uses. Similarly, the redevelopment of glasshouses will not be permitted. |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
on the basis that they would have been given permission originally because of their importance to agriculture: if they are no longer required for agricultural purposes they should be removed or re-used for agriculture or employment- related uses, but only where any new use would not detract from the character of the Green Zone.
Cultural and tourism uses
Minor development
Managed open spaces
| Cultural and tourism uses New or extended cultural and tourism development in the Green Zone needs to be sensitive and proportionate to the fragility and vulnerability of its landscape setting. The Countryside Character Appraisal is a valuable tool, identifying development and management threats to character areas and their capacity for change: it can be used to inform decisions on development proposals. Given the presumption against development in the Green Zone any exceptions related to new or extended cultural and tourism attractions must have limited impact on its relevant landscape character area. Examples might include proposals based on the use and enjoyment of environmental and heritage assets, and likely to relate to informal recreation, leisure and tourism. Interpretative facilities and access infrastructure proposals will be considered favourably where designed to minimise visual impact and having no undue effects on sensitive environmental or heritage assets. Similarly, proposals involving a change of use of land to enable activity-based tourism and leisure pursuits will be considered relative to their impacts upon the sensitivity of environmental and heritage assets, as well as the implications of greater levels of more active use of land for the character of an area. Proposals to extend, intensify or redevelop existing leisure and tourism facilities will be considered as with any other employment use. Leisure and tourism activities can also generate a requirement for ancillary services and buildings. New leisure and tourism buildings are unlikely to be favourably considered other than possibly small scale buildings or structures such as kiosks. The visual implications, infrastructure requirements and effect on the locality's intensity of the use will require careful consideration relative to the sensitivity of the landscape character. It is unlikely that they will be favourably considered where highly visible and/or unscreened by landscaping or where there are no nearby existing formal car parking and/or toilet facilities. Minor development Development of a minor scale that is ancillary to a primary use of land could adversely affect the qualities of the Green Zone depending on the sensitivity of the landscape. Small scale proposals, that are incidental to the primary use of land and buildings and outside the scope of existing permitted development rights will only be permissible in the Green Zone where they are well designed and sited and their impact does not seriously harm landscape character. Managed open spaces Managed open spaces, such as playing fields, other amenity spaces, cemeteries and allotments, can have a limited impact upon the character of the |
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
it abuts the Built-up Area, such a s playing fields and other managed open spaces, such as amenity space, cemeteries and allotments, will be considered in terms of their impact upon the landscape character of the area and other polices of the Plan, such as SCO5 and SCO6. Strategic development
| countryside. Their provision will be considered in terms of impact upon landscape character and other polices of the Plan, such as SCO5 and SCO6 Strategic development There may emerge, during the remainder of the Plan period, strategic development proposals of Island-wide significance related to the generation of utility-scale renewable energy; the extraction of minerals; or the provision of elements of significant public infrastructure, such as a new secondary school in the Green Zone. Any such development will likely need to be considered within the context of a full and thorough Environmental Impact Assessment to ensure that: the need is proven; alternatives have been properly identified and considered; and that environmental implications for the Green Zone are properly identified, avoided and/or mitigated as far as possible. In accord with the Plan's sequential approach to development, consideration of alternative less environmentally sensitive locations will need to have been properly considered. | Inspectors' recommendation: education provision that the Minister proceeds as he intends with regard to education provision within the Green Zone. Inspectors' report: 3.56 We stressed then, and repeat now, that there is no actual proposal before us: the issue is solely one of whether the Plan should make provision in principle that would enable a GZ site to be considered. The Minister (for Environment) has indicated his willingness to do so and we endorse that as sensible provision but without in any way commenting on the merits of relocation much less any particular site. Minister's response The Inspectors' recommendation is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. |
Policy NE7: Green Zone The Green Zone, as designated on the Proposals Map, will be given a high level of protection from development and there will be a general presumption against all forms of development. The Minister for Planning and Environment, however, recognises that there are existing buildings and land uses within the Green Zone and that to prevent all development here is unreasonable. Accordingly, the following exceptions to the general presumption against development in the Green Zone may be permissible where they do not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area: Residential
| Policy NE7: Green Zone The Green Zone, as designated on the Proposals Map, will be given a high level of protection from development and there will be a general presumption against all forms of development, including but not limited to:
the change of use of land to extend a domestic curtilage; redevelopment of modern agricultural building(s) involving demolition and replacement with a building(s) for another use, or their conversion to a non-employment use; redevelopment of glasshouse(s) involving demolition and replacement with a building(s) or conversion for another use , or their conversion to a non-employment use. Only the following exceptions may be permissible, and only where they do not cause serious harm to landscape character: Residential 1. the extension of a dwelling, but only where:
c. having regard to its planning history, it does not disproportionately increase the size of the dwelling in terms of any of its gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact; d. it does not facilitate significant increased occupancy; and e. in the case of an extension or the conversion of part of an existing dwelling to create a separate household: i. the accommodation is for an elderly relative or a relative who requires a degree of care and/or support for their health and | Inspectors' recommendations: form and layout (3.46) that subject to our more detailed recommendations and illustrative revisions with respect to Policy NE6 and its preamble, in the interests of consistency of approach, and increased clarity and consistency of decision making, the Minister progresses the form and layout of Policy NE7 and its preamble along the lines set out in his Proposed revision. (3.54) that the Minister proceeds along the lines set out in the Proposed revision but considers making Policy NE7 and its preamble more succinct following similar principles to those outlined in paragraph 3.41 and illustrated in the annexes to this Chapter. Inspectors' report: 3.45 in light of our previous conclusion that the revised approach proposed for Policy NE 6 and its preamble would enhance the clarity of decision making within the CNP, we accept the case for adopting a broadly similar formulation in the drafting of Policy NE7 and its preamble, so that users can more readily appreciate the similarities and differences in the substance between the Plan's policies for the two defined areas of the Island. Minister's response This recommendation has been accepted by the Minister and changes to the form and layout of the pre-amble and policy have been made accordingly. Inspectors' report: objective criteria 3.51As with our consideration of Policy NE6, the Proposed revision moves NE7 in the direction of objective criteria but, rightly, stops short of a mechanistic reliance on specified floorspaces, building footprints or the like which might lead to undesirable outcomes in unforeseen circumstances. Concepts such as "disproportionately large" give a measure of discretion but only at the margins, and individual planning decisions will remain open to first and third party (merits based) appeals in the event that one of the parties feels aggrieved by the outcome. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
existing buildings, the landscape context, size, material, colour and form; and c. it does not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area
For the avoidance of doubt, there will remain the strongest presumption against:
| well-being;
f. it does not seriously harm landscape character.
a. accord with Policy H9: staff and key agricultural worker accommodation; and b. not cause serious harm to the landscape character of the area. Employment
c. an intensification does not create undue noise, disturbance or a significant increase in travel and trip generation; and d. it does not cause serious harm to landscape character.
a. it would be no larger in terms of any of gross floorspace, building footprint or visual impact than that being replaced; b. an intensification does not create undue noise, disturbance or a significant increase in travel and trip generation; and c. it gives rise to demonstrable environmental gains, contributing to the repair and restoration of landscape character.
| policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Inspectors' report: : objective criteria 3.51As with respect to Policy NE6, and for similar reasons, we do not accept that the qualified exception to consider extensions to existing houses somehow warrants a further exception to enable a replacement dwelling (or replacement ancillary building) to be larger than that being replaced. Minister's response The Inspectors' measured support for the greater use of objective criteria for this policy is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. Minister's changes The Minister has made further proposed changes to the policy to;
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
materials, landscaping, or means of enclosure.
For the avoidance of doubt, there will remain the strongest presumption in the Green Zone against:
Minor development
| conversion of a building), to other employment uses, but only where:
d. it does not seriously harm landscape character.
a. is appropriate relative to existing buildings and its landscape context; and does not seriously harm landscape character. b. Minor development
|
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Policy NE7: Green Zone – pre-amble and policy | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Managed open space
Strategic development
| Managedopen space
Strategic development
| Inspectors' recommendation: education provision (3.56) that the Minister proceeds as he intends with regard to education provision within the Green Zone. Inspectors' report: 3.56 We stressed then, and repeat now, that there is no actual proposal before us: the issue is solely one of whether the Plan should make provision in principle that would enable a GZ site to be considered. The Minister (for Environment) has indicated his willingness to do so and we endorse that as sensible provision but without in any way commenting on the merits of relocation much less any particular site. Minister's response The Inspectors' recommendation is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
6.13 Category A affordable housing is defined as follows; Affordable (Category A) housing includes homes for social rent and purchase, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the commercial housing market. Affordable housing should meet the needs of persons on median incomes or below, who would otherwise have financial difficulties renting or purchasing residential accommodation in the general residential market, determined with regard to income levels and house prices prevailing in Jersey; and Affordable housing may be owned and managed by a housing trust or association which provides homes to eligible families or individuals by means of sale or lease or by any other means on conditions that will ensure that the home will remain available for eligible families in the future. In order to ensure that the benefit of and access to affordable housing provided under this policy is not lost to future eligible households, conditions or restrictions may be imposed to ensure that the benefit may be recycled or retained in order to ensure the provision of affordable housing meets the needs of this and future generations. The eligibility of households to access affordable housing shall be determined by their assessment through the Affordable Housing Gateway. The Minister is committed to good quality design in housing and, in particular, will require that affordable homes be built to meet or exceed the standards for homes set out in supplementary planning guidance. To ensure that homes are truly affordable the Minister will encourage innovation in construction methods and alternative methods of home ownership and housing delivery. The clear relationship between affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Gateway means that housing that is developed for sale on the open market (Category B) is excluded from the definition of affordable housing whatever price it is sold at. | 6.13 Category A affordable housing is defined as follows; Affordable (Category A) housing includes homes for social rent and purchase, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the commercial housing market. Affordable housing should meet the needs of persons on median incomes or below, who would otherwise have financial difficulties renting or purchasing residential accommodation in the general residential market, determined with regard to income levels and house prices prevailing in Jersey; and Affordable housing may be owned and managed by a registered affordable housing provider that provides homes to eligible families or individuals by means of sale or lease or by any other means on conditions that will ensure that the home will remain available for eligible families in the future. In order to ensure that the benefit of and access to affordable housing provided under this policy is not lost to future eligible households, conditions or restrictions may be imposed to ensure that the benefit may be recycled or retained in order to ensure the provision of affordable housing meets the needs of this and future generations. The eligibility of households to access affordable housing shall be determined by their assessment through the Affordable Housing Gateway. The Minister is committed to good quality design in housing and, in particular, will require that affordable homes be built to meet or exceed the standards for homes set out in supplementary planning guidance. To ensure that homes are truly affordable the Minister will encourage innovation in construction methods and alternative methods of home ownership and housing delivery. The clear relationship between affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Gateway means that housing that is developed for sale on the open market (Category B) is excluded from the definition of affordable housing whatever price it is sold at. | Inspectors' report: Category A housing definition 4.62 The intention of this is to narrow down the definition so that it is focused on those in greatest need. In particular the previous reference to first time buyers was seen as having made its scope too broad. The new definition is based on the Housing affordability study (BT2), and it was generally supported in principle. Deputy Green pointed out that the Housing Gateway (which had not been developed at the time of the last EiP) enabled greater precision in matching those in need to the housing available. The definition had been prepared jointly with the Strategic Housing Unit and the Council of Ministers. (In passing, we note here an apparently much greater level of co-operation between Planning and Housing as compared with the previous EiP). 4.63The States approach, in the face of a very serious problem, and with house prices described by Mrs Blakeley (AJA) as being much too high ("it is very expensive to live here generally; we need a re-balance") has taken a view, which we think is reasonable, that it is only by direct intervention in provision via "registered affordable housing providers" (to use the term now included in the definition) that inroads will be made into the problem. Minister's response The Inspectors' comments are noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed as proposed, with a minor amendment to the term used for registered affordable housing providers included in the definition as this is a more accurate and appropriate description. |
6.24 A combination of population modelling and average household size modelling, has been used to estimate housing requirements for Jersey from 2005-2035. (4)This base data has been used, by the States of Jersey Statistics Unit, to generate estimations of housing requirements for the Plan period of 1,500 homes for each of two five-year tranches, 2011 - 2015; 2016 - 2020, giving a total requirement, generated by population change of 3,000 homes during the Plan period. | 6.24 A combination of population modelling, using the 2011 Census figures and average household size modelling, has been used to estimate housing requirements for Jersey for the remainder of the Plan period (3)This base data generates estimations of housing requirements of 1,000 homes between 2013 - 2015 and 1,300 homes for the period 2016 - 2020. This gives a total requirement, generated by population change of 2,300 homes during reminder of the Plan period to 2020. | Inspectors' report: housing demand 4.13 Having read all the evidence and considered the various points made at the EiP we do not believe that the assessment of demand set out in the revised proposals is deficient. We accept the demand side figures. Minister's response The Inspectors' acceptance of the assessment of housing demand is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed on the basis of the following amendment to the demand side figures which have been updated to reflect changes in plan period and population modelling. housing requirements 2016-20 amended from 1,450 to 1,300 (2012- 2020 ie.8 years) with consequential amendments |
See comment on housing demand (above) |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
6.36 On the basis of population modelling and housing aspiration, moderated by considerations of realistic affordability, it is estimated that 3,450 homes are required over the remaining Plan period 2013 to 2020 (an average requirement of 430 dwellings per year), of which 1,000 should be affordable housing (an average requirement of 125 dwellings per year). | See comment on housing demand (above) | |
See comment on housing demand (above) | ||
6.48 The following States-owned sites may also become available during the Plan period and the redevelopment for affordable homes (in whole or in part) could contribute additional supply. Potential yield from these sites has not been included in estimations of supply at this stage as it's status is not definitive.
| 6.48 The following States-owned site may also become available during the Plan period and its redevelopment for affordable homes (in whole or in part) could contribute additional supply. Potential yield from this site has not been included in estimations of supply at this stage. La Motte Street Youth Centre, St. Helier | Minister's changes The Norman's Timber Yard has been removed from the States of Jersey owned sites supply as it is not wholly owned by the States. (NB. this site was not included in the overall supply tables and so its removal is not material to the total supply of housing) |
6.56 The sites identified as likely to come forward by 2020 are:
| 6.56 The sites identified as likely to come forward by 2020 are:
| Minister's changes An additional 50 units is estimated to be delivered from this site – based upon more recent detailed site analysis by the States of Jersey Property Holdings (All subsequent tables (6.3 & 6.4) and text references have been updated.) |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Inspectors' report: housing supply 4.37 We consider that assuming the sites listed in Policy H1 are confirmed by the States, the figures shown in Table 6.3 are reasonable and justified by the evidence.. Minister's response and changes The Inspectors' acceptance of the assessment of housing supply is noted by the Minister and he intends to proceed on the basis of the following amendment to the supply side figures which have been updated to reflect minor amendments and changes to various supply sources. | ||
Minister's changes Net figures adjusted to reflect changes in demand and supply described above. | ||
shortfall in the period 2013-15. |
shortfall in the period 2013-15. | Minister's changes Net figures adjusted to reflect changes in demand and supply described above. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Minister's changes Net figures adjusted to reflect changes in demand and supply described above. | ||
6.83 Access to the homes, whether they are managed by the States of Jersey Housing Department or other providers of social housing such as housing associations and the parishes, will be managed by the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway. This will ensure that they are occupied by households whose needs cannot be met by the open housing market. | 6.83 Access to the homes, whether they are managed by the States of Jersey Housing Department or other providers of social housing such as housing trusts and the parishes, will be managed by the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway. This will ensure that they are occupied by households whose needs cannot be met by the open housing market. | Minister's changes The reference to Housing Associations' has been amended to Housing Trusts' as this term is more accurate. |
Policy H 1 Category A affordable housing sites States-owned land To assist with and contribute to the provision of affordable homes the following States-owned sites, which are already identified for disposal, will be developed, in whole or in part, to provide affordable homes:
Other States-owned sites, should they be deemed to be surplus to requirements during the Plan period, may also be developed, in whole or in part, for the purposes of providing affordable homes, including:
| 6.91 Given the reliance of the housing strategy in the Plan upon the delivery of affordable homes on States-owned land, it is important that this source of supply 'performs' in accord with targets for completion. In the event that the supply of affordable homes from this source is not satisfactory, and, in particular, if substantial progress has not been made in the Summerland/Ambulance station site by the start of 2016, the Minister may seek to bring forward other, readily implementable alternatives requiring a further review of the plan. Policy H 1 Category A affordable housing sites States-owned land To assist with and contribute to the provision of affordable homes the following States-owned sites, which are already identified for disposal, will be developed, in whole or in part, to provide affordable homes:
Other States-owned sites, should they be deemed to be surplus to requirements during the Plan period, may also be developed, in whole or in part, for the purposes of providing affordable homes, including:
| Inspectors' recommendation: Policy H1 – States-owned sites (4.27)that the sites included in Policy H1 should be approved. That should substantial progress fail to be made by the start of 2016 on the Summerland/Ambulance Station site readily implementable alternatives should urgently be sought. Inspectors' report: 4.20It is understandable that there was some scepticism among participants regarding the development of States-owned sites. Mr Cotillard (Jersey Construction Council) was among those who expressed doubts. Some of those included in the 2011 Plan have not proceeded (as previously mentioned), and some have been dropped. Others have moved forward very slowly. On the other hand some sites, such as Le Squez which we visited, have clearly come forward. But we and others asked questions about the land included in the proposed revisions. 4.21There are two sites in this category. The first is the Jersey College for Girls. This was in the 2011 Plan but has not as yet come forward. We were however told of recent progress (it is subject to a current planning application) and we are as satisfied as we can be that this will at last happen. We were told it will include 75 units of social housing. 4.22The second is "Summerland and Ambulance Station, Rouge Bouillon". We visited this site and saw the very active uses which exist there. The Minister sees this as coming towards the end of the Plan period (between 2016 and 2020). A number of participants expressed doubts about this; and we share them, based on the past record to which we have referred. Since it is not proposed for development imminently, we do not see the need to replace it at present; but should there be no substantial progress within two years from the EiP (ie by the beginning of 2016) we recommend that other sites are brought forward in its stead. Minister's response and changes The Minister notes the Inspectors' guarded concern about the ability of States- owned sites to deliver homes relative to anticipated targets. The Minister proposes to make explicit reference to the potential requirement to review the Plan again should less than satisfactory progress be made in the Plan. |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy H 1 Category A affordable housing sites Private land Other sites, currently in private ownership, listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, comprising a total of approximately 18 acres (40 vergées) of land, are zoned for the purpose of delivering 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved. Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that they are brought forward for the development of affordable homes.
| Policy H 1 Category A affordable housing sites Private land Other sites, currently in private ownership, listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, comprising a total of approximately 18 acres (40 vergées) of land, are zoned for the purpose of delivering 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved. Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that they are brought forward for the development of affordable homes.
| Inspectors' recommendation: Policy H1 – private sites (4.28) that should the States fail to support any or all of the sites proposed in H1, alternative, readily implementable sites should immediately be brought forward urgently for public consultation and a further EiP at the earliest possible date . Inspectors' report: 4.26 we conclude that all four should go ahead. (We consider later whether the States should have compulsory purchase powers so as to ensure, if needs be, that this happens). As we have suggested already, we think the States made an error in excluding these sites in 2011 and that this needs to be rectified if the Island Plan is to be effective in meeting the Island's needs. Minister's response and changes The Minister notes the Inspectors' support for the proposed rezoning of the four strategic H1 sites in private ownership and their concern about the States failing to support all four of them. The Minister proposes no change to the Plan but highlights the need for the States to support the rezoning of these sites in his report to the States. |
Policy H1(4) De la Mare Nurseries, Grouville (Proposals Map and site assessments ) | Amendment to site boundary to:
| Inspectors' recommendation: de la Mare Nurseries, Grouville that the Minister amends Proposed revision Map B.1 to exclude the supermarket site from the defined Policy H1 housing site, extends the northwestern boundary as far as but not beyond the south eastern edge of the horticultural reservoir, and retains the written Policy H1 section 5 without amendment. Minister's response and changes The Inspectors' recommendation is noted and accepted by the Minister who intends to proceed on the basis of the amended site boundary because:
|
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Policy H1(7) Longueville Nurseries, St Saviour (Proposals Map and site assessments ) | Amendment to site boundary to: extend the site to the north-east | Inspectors' recommendation: Longueville Nurseries, St Saviour that the Minister amends Proposed revision Map B.3 so the rearward boundary runs along the line of the retaining wall just behind the main polytunnels. Subject to that, we recommend that no change be made to Policy H1 with respect to this site. Minister's response and changes The Inspectors' recommendation is noted and accepted by the Minister who intends to proceed on the basis of the amended site boundary because:
|
Policy H 2: Other Category A affordable housing sites The following previously rezoned sites, listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, are zoned for the purpose of delivering 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved. Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that they are brought forward for the development of affordable homes.
The development of Category A social rent affordable housing and Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site will be regulated through the award of planning permission and planning obligation agreements. The potential number and type of homes that could be provided on these sites will be considered in development briefs to be issued, as supplementary planning guidance, by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Access to all Category A affordable homes shall be controlled and managed though the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway and all social rent affordable homes are to be managed by a States of Jersey approved registered social landlord. | Policy H 2: Other Category A affordable housing sites The following previously rezoned site, listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, is zoned for the purpose of delivering 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved. Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that it's brought forward for the development of affordable homes. 1. Field 873, Bel Royal, St Lawrence (0.9 acres/ 2.0 vergées); The development of Category A social rent affordable housing and Category A affordable housing for purchase on this site will be regulated through the award of planning permission and planning obligation agreements. The potential number and type of homes that could be provided on this site will be considered in a development brief to be issued, as supplementary planning guidance, by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Access to all Category A affordable homes shall be controlled and managed though the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway and all social rent affordable homes are to be managed by a States of Jersey approved registered social landlord. | Minister's change The Plan at Policy H2, and other related sections, has been updated to reflect the fact that development at Field 274, St Clement has now commenced and the development of homes here are under construction. |
Policy H5: Affordable housing in rural centres The Minister will support the provision of affordable housing to support the viability and vitality of Jersey's rural settlements. Those sites listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, comprising a total of approximately 4.5 acres (10.5 vergées) of land, are zoned for the | Policy H5: Affordable housing in rural centres The Minister will support the provision of affordable housing to support the viability and vitality of Jersey's rural settlements. The site listed below and shown on the Island Proposals Map, is zoned for the purpose of providing 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% | Inspectors' recommendation: Field 402, St Martin (4.109) that the site is retained in the Plan but is subject to the preparation and adoption of a Village Plan (including full consideration of alternatives) to the Minister's satisfaction |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
purpose of delivering 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved. Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that they are brought forward for the development of affordable homes.
The development of Category A social rent affordable housing and Category A affordable housing for purchase on each site will be regulated through the award of planning permission and planning obligation agreements. The potential number and type of homes that could be provided on these sites will be considered in development briefs to be issued, as supplementary planning guidance, by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Access to all Category A affordable homes shall be controlled and managed though the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway and all social rent affordable homes are to be managed by a States of Jersey approved registered social landlord. Other housing development proposals to support the viability and vitality of Jersey's rural settlements will be permitted, provided that the development:
| Category A affordable housing for purchase. Planning permission for other forms of development will not be approved.
The following site has been identified and is specifically zoned for the purposes of providing 80% Category A social rent affordable housing and 20% Category A affordable housing for purchase, subject to the preparation and adoption of a village plan (including a full consideration of alternative sites) by the Minister for Planning and Environment:
Where necessary, the sites will be acquired by the States on behalf of the public, if needs be by compulsory purchase, in order to ensure that they are brought forward for the development of affordable homes. The development of Category A social rent affordable housing and Category A affordable housing for purchase on the site will be regulated through the award of planning permission and planning obligation agreements. The potential number and type of homes that could be provided on the site will be considered in development briefs to be issued, as supplementary planning guidance, by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Access to all Category A affordable homes shall be controlled and managed though the States of Jersey Affordable Housing Gateway and all social rent affordable homes are to be managed by a States of Jersey approved registered social landlord. Other housing development proposals to support the viability and vitality of Jersey's rural settlements will be permitted, provided that the development:
| Inspectors' report
Minister's response and changes The Inspectors' recommendation is noted and accepted by the Minister who intends to proceed on the basis of the proposed amendment to Policy H5 in respect of Field 402, St Martin. Inspectors' recommendation: Field 622, St Ouen (4.127) that this site is deleted from the Island Plan but that work on the Village Plan is completed as quickly as possible with a view either to its reinstatement or the addition of an alternative site. Inspectors' report
Minister's response and changes The Inspectors' recommendation is noted and accepted by the Minister who has deleted Field 622 from the Plan. The Minister will work with the Parish to undertake a Village Plan expeditiously to ensure that all alternatives are properly and openly assessed. |
Unqualified housing: standards Extract from Policy H9 Staff and key agricultural worker accommodation Staff and key agricultural worker accommodation should be provided and be of a standard that is in accordance with the Minister for Planning and Environment's published guidance for housing Proposals for staff accommodation through the conversion, rearrangement, subdivision or extension of an existing building, or through the provision of | Unqualified housing: standards Extract from Policy H9 Staff and key agricultural worker accommodation Staff and key agricultural worker accommodation should be provided and be of a standard that is in accordance with the Minister for Planning and Environment's published guidance for housing Proposals for staff accommodation through the conversion, rearrangement, subdivision or extension of an existing building, or through the provision of | Inspectors' recommendation: Unqualified housing: standards (4.51) that no change is made to the Plan. But we register our concern that insufficient priority has been given to the implementation of Policy H9. At any future review/EiP specific attention should be given to the needs of people in this sector, and to the adequacy of Policy H9 and its implementation. Inspectors' report: 4.47 We have found it difficult to understand the issues fully.. 4.48 there are significant concerns about the quality of this accommodation. 4.49 We discussed the informal accommodation which is spread throughout |
2011 Island Plan: interim review (July 2013) | revised draft revision Island Plan 2011 (March 2014) | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
Chapter 6: Housing | Chapter 6: Housing | Inspectors' recommendation and reason for change |
temporary buildings should meet, as closely as possible, the required standards for housing as set out in the supplementary planning guidance issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The provision of such accommodation which does not meet those standards established for lodging houses will not be permitted. Permission for new housing in the countryside to house key agricultural workers will not be permitted unless, in exceptional cases, it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, that the proposal meets all of the criteria identified above and is solely for occupation by a bona fide agriculturalist. New permanent housing for key agricultural workers will not be permitted unless it meets the required standards for housing as set out in the supplementary planning guidance issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment. | temporary buildings should meet, as closely as possible, the required standards for housing as set out in the supplementary planning guidance issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The provision of such accommodation which does not meet those standards established for lodging houses will not be permitted. Permission for new housing in the countryside to house key agricultural workers will not be permitted unless, in exceptional cases, it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, that the proposal meets all of the criteria identified above and is solely for occupation by a bona fide agriculturalist. New permanent housing for key agricultural workers will not be permitted unless it meets the required standards for housing as set out in the supplementary planning guidance issued by the Minister for Planning and Environment. | the Island, and we were told that there were 152 units at the time of the Census. Given that we ourselves saw a considerable number of such units during our site visits – which did not to any degree amount to a thorough examination of the phenomenon – we were surprised that this figure was so low. 4.50 We were left with a sense that more needed to be done to understand this problem and to raise standards. Deputy Power said that Policy H9 (which deals with staff and key worker accommodation, and is not the subject of a proposed revision) was not being effective. New accommodation met standards but older units did not. We are encouraged that the Strategic Housing Unit will be looking at this in the round. We hope that this will overcome the perception that those in this sector are not given the attention that they merit, and we hope that the concerns and experience of people like Monsignor France will, by the time of the next EiP, be very different. The evidence suggests that there is not a shortage of accommodation, provided migration levels remain at or around the expected level. But there is a problem of quality, and there is insufficient information about informal accommodation. We are not clear what can be done in policy terms within the Island Plan, through which as the Minister said in his closing submission it is difficult to address conditions in existing accommodation. This is largely a matter of culture and priority, not a matter of planning policy formulation. Policy H9 already makes appropriate provision but it appears, as Deputy Power said, that it is not being effectively implemented. Minister's response The Minister notes the Inspectors' concerns. As recommended, he proposes no change to the Plan but will seek to address matters related to the implementation of Policy H9 and will work with others to better understand and address the quality of existing stock. |