Supplementary Planning Guidance: Parking

STATES OF JERSEY

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE: PARKING

Lodged au Greffe on 1st July 2025

by the Connétable of St. Helier Earliest date for debate: 9th September 2025

STATES GREFFE

2025  P.54

PROPOSITION

THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion

to request the Minister for the Environment –

1. to revise the relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance to ensure that, where practicable, a minimum of one parking space is provided per unit of accommodation; and
2. to allow, where feasible under the terms of the Bridging Island Plan, the creation of new off-street car parks that will be prioritised for the use of drivers with reduced mobility, shoppers and visitors.

CONNÉTABLE OF ST. HELIER

REPORT

Over the past 25 years I have brought several successful amendments to States strategic plans to ensure that adequate parking is provided – especially in new-builds – for St Helier parishioners, as well as for shoppers and tourists. In spite of my efforts the Planning Department has pursued policies of reducing parking provision in St Helier, with the most recent Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking and the Bridging Island Plan effectively discriminating against residents of Town' by discouraging the provision of parking in our Parish while exempting developers from such policies in the rural areas, for example through Bridging Island Plan Policy TT4 Provision of off- street parking. By failing to introduce any policies at all which discourage commuting into town by car such as have been in place for decades in many other towns and cities, the States has upturned the parking hierarchy, except in the case of St Helier residents. If the States wishes to reduce car ownership this should be a policy which applies to all Islanders, not merely those who live in urban areas.

The flawed thinking of the planners is that people who live in town don't need cars, and if they have them they will contribute to traffic congestion: this mistakenly equates car ownership with car use. It also suggests that town residents' vehicle use creates traffic congestion, when the majority of this is patently caused by the large number of vehicles travelling into or through the town from outside it. Residents of urban areas will not, for the most part, use their vehicle for commuting or the school run, the two biggest generators of traffic congestion; however, they will use their vehicle for some of their shopping trips and for their leisure activities, both on and off the island. To deny town dwellers the same right of car ownership as is enjoyed by residents of rural parishes is discriminatory. It also unfairly penalises people whose choice of town living brings with it the exposure to the higher levels of air pollution caused by vehicle use than affects rural and coastal dwellers.

I have supported a number of proposals brought to the States Assembly that have been designed to preserve the Island's countryside and coastal areas of natural beauty, including the purchase of Plemont and Greve de Lecq, while I have argued and voted against the rezoning of agricultural land for housing. I have done this because town dwellers, by their choice of living in a sustainable location, one which does indeed reduce their dependence on the private car, should be able to benefit from the pleasures of visiting an unspoilt island. Current planning policy, however, would seek to impel town dwellers to only access the coast and countryside by bus or bicycle, by placing car ownership out of their reach by limiting supply.

The Parish of St Helier's Highway Authority, the Roads Committee, in its capacity as a statutory consultee on planning applications, has consistently requested the planning department to ensure that adequate parking is provided in new developments or rebuilds. The Committee has accepted that this is not always possible especially in the conversion of buildings or where there are concerns about built heritage. However, much of the new housing which our Parish has had to accept are large flatted developments with ample opportunity for car parking, albeit that underground parking provision affects the profit to be made from such developments. I can only think of a single example, Dandara's development at West's Centre, where the Roads Committee's advice has actually been heeded by the planners, with the developer agreeing to provide a floor of parking at ground floor level. For the rest of the new homes provided in town over the past two decades the planners have encouraged developers to provide less than a parking space per unit (which might be of two or three beds), with the current policy suggesting

that town centre developments need provide no parking at all. The following table indicates how far short of a standard one parking space per unit has been achieved in housing developments and redevelopments over the past three years:

Providing too little parking for town residents who wish to enjoy the benefits of car ownership forces them to pay much higher costs for parking their vehicles than would

otherwise be the case and in parking places which lack security and convenience. The Parish has sought to prioritise on street parking spaces for residents without their own parking facilities while continuing to cater for the parking needs of drivers with reduced mobility, businesses, service companies, visitors and the like, but every development that is permitted with inadequate parking increases the pressure on the Residents' Parking scheme.

The impact of inadequate parking is particularly serious in the case of town residents who require regular calls from carers, with some care staff receiving parking fines in the course of carrying out their important work. Additionally, the residents of flatted developments, especially those administered by housing trusts and Andium Homes, should be entitled to receive visits from family members and friends, not all of whom are able to carry out such visits by public transport.

Current planning policies also appear to underestimate the importance of car parking to support the economy of town, especially the retail, service, entertainment and hospitality sectors. A recent attempt by a developer to construct a modest car park to serve the Havre des Pas area was refused on various grounds including the fact that new private car parks are not permitted under the latest Bridging Island Plan, even though such a facility would be of enormous benefit to the restaurants and hotels of the area as well as for other visitors to the beach and Lido. Not everyone can use the bus or a bicycle to travel around the Island and if a developer wishes to create a private car park rather than yet more flats they should be encouraged to do so.

Financial and staffing implications

Ensuring that housing developments are provided with a minimum of of one parking space per unit will undoubtedly affect the bottom line for those carrying out the development,  but  there  should  be  no  financial  or  staffing  implications  for  the Government of Jersey.

Children's Rights Impact Assessment

A Children's Rights Impact Assessment (CRIA) has been prepared in relation to this proposition and is available to read on the States Assembly website.