The development of the former Jersey Pearl site in St. John

1240/5(1858)

QUESTION TO BE ASKED OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE ON TUESDAY, 20th MAY 2003, BY THE DEPUTY OF ST. JOHN

Question

In relation to the new development on the former Jersey Pearl site in St. John, would the President inform members -

(a ) what is the Committee's policy, if applicable, relating to the protection of existing neighbouring

properties when considering applications for major new developments of this type?

( b ) what provisions are made, if any, for site inspection by officers of the Planning Department during the

course of development works of a major new development of this type?

( c ) what is the Committee's policy, if applicable, relating to the number of windows included in a new

development of this type which overlook existing neighbouring properties? and,

( d ) what consideration, if any, is given by the Committee to applications for major developments of this type

relating to future extensions of the properties, and if so, what provision is made for the impact on parking and open space?

Answer

1. The Committee's current policy is to be found in the Island Plan at Policy G2General Development Considerations', a copy ofwhich is attached for members,which states;

A pplicants will need to demonstrate that the proposed development -

(i i) w ill not have an unreasonable impact on neighbouring uses and the local environment by reason of

visual intrusion or other amenity considerations.'

T he application decision on the Jersey Pearl site was, of course, made by the former Planning and

Environment Committee before the Island Plan was approved in July 2002. However, although there was no explicit policy in the 1987 Island Plan, I am advised that, for many years, successive Committees have assessed applications in this way.

A  ll applications fall to be considered on their merits, and no two situations are the same. We cannot be

prescriptive in a way that is applicable in every situation, and so the Committee has to make a judgement which balances the interests of applicant and neighbour in a way that is reasonable'. In granting permission for the development at St. John, which is currently under construction, the former Committee, or more precisely the Applications Sub-Committee to which the Committee had delegated such decision-making powers, considered the relationship between the proposals and neighbouring properties. That relationship is not unusual in a built-up area, and in the Sub-Committee's view there was no demonstrable harm to neighbouring properties or the residents' quality of life.

2. Thereare statutory requirements forinspectionsto be madeatcertain stages of construction, for the purpose of building by-lawcompliance, and a copy of the Building Bye-laws 2001, Part3,Section12 is attached for membersinformation. It is also standard practice for the Building ControlSurveyors to make regular and frequentinspectionsof larger and more complicateddevelopments, in order for them to be able tocertify compliance with the building by-laws at completion. These officers are also able to assess whether planning conditions arebeing met.

I can confirm that this particular development has been inspected regularly since construction began (over

100 times).

3. Thereisno policy relating specifically to the numberofwindows.Suchmattersfallto be considered in detail underthe policy I referred to in my first answer.
4. No specific consideration for the possibility of future extensions is given at this stage.Extensions will fall to be considered subsequently if they require permission, when detailed issues such as the adequacyof car parking will be addressed. It does not follow that all extensions will beapproved.Some extensions will be exempted from the need to receive permission as a resultof the new ExemptedOperationsRegulations stated in P.209/2002 approved by the States in November 2002, and a copy extract is attached for members information.