Relocation of Police Head Quarters to Green Street Car Park - Report - 16 November 2012

Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Relocation of Police Head Quarters to Green Street Car Park

Presented to the States on 16th November 2012

S.R.19/2012

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  1

1. INTRODUCTION  5
2. BACKGROUND   7
3. KEY ISSUES  12

1. BUDGET RESTRAINTS  12
2. CONSTRAINTS OF THE GREEN STREET SITE  21
3. SPECIFIC POLICE USER REQUIREMENTS   30
4. PARKING ISSUES  40 APPENDIX 1 – PANEL MEMBERSHIP  47 APPENDIX 2 – OVERVIEW OF SITE OPTIONS CONSIDERED   48

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Terms of reference: The following terms of reference were established for this review

To consider the extent to which the planned Police Headquarters at Green Street Car Park meets the current and future requirements of the States of Jersey Police.

Scope of the review: The Education and Home Affairs Panel undertook this review with a specific focus on matters relating to the internal design of the new Police HQ at Green Street car park and the question whether the proposed building would adequately meet the requirements of the States of Jersey Police Force over the next twenty to thirty years. The Panel was clear that issues relating to location and planning issues, such as traffic implications, the impact of the building on its immediate environment and the loss of public parking at Green Street were not within its remit.

Budget restraints: The budget for the project was set in 2000 at £21m but has not been revised for inflation effectively restricting the budget available for the project. The Panel wished to examine whether budget limitations had compromised the requirements of the States of Jersey Police in any way.

A review undertaken in 2009 by the incoming Deputy Chief Officer of Police resulted in a 30% reduction in the specifications for the internal occupied floor area and a saving of approximately £5.3m on estimated construction costs. The Deputy Chief Officer concluded that the design which had been developed over the previous decade was over-specified and did not take full account of developments in modern policing standards. He believed that the over-specification had been a major factor in the difficulty and delays in identifying a suitable site.

The specifications agreed in this review were the basis for the option of using Green Street car park.

The Panel was informed that the Green Street design had not resulted in any further reduction to the overall floor area but in fact provided a small increase in overall area, compared to the 2009 review specifications. In 2009 the internal occupied area brief for the Police HQ had set a spatial requirement for 5,303 sq m. The current design at Green Street had an internal occupied area of 5,457 sqm.

In terms of external spaces, the 2009 schedule had been modified in the Green Street proposal by the removal of 7 visitor parking spaces on site, the reduction of the parking requirement for police operational vehicles in the basement and the location of oversized police vehicles and the Scenes of Crime garage at a separate location.

In terms of the internal areas, the brief had been developed to support the adoption of modern office working methods and to facilitate a more efficient use of space. The Panel noted that this also indicated a sharp increase in workplace density and members were concerned that this might signal a crowded workplace environment.

Further research by the Panel has shown that this follows a trend in UK offices generally as well as in Home Office guidelines for Police Buildings. The Panel does not claim any expertise in assessing whether the proposed building will achieve the design principles set out in the Home Office guidelines. It is for the States of Jersey Police to be confident that they have considered and achieved every significant detail of their requirements. The States of Jersey Police have signed off the design accordingly.

That said, the Panel identified a number of issues which they wished to clarify regarding the implications of elements which had been removed from the original specifications. These included

• the removal of staff parking;
• the combination of storage spaces;
• the impossibility of providing visitor parking on site; and
• the off-site location of the Scenes of Crime garage and archive storage, as well as an area for recovered cars.

Constraints of the Green Street Site: It has been suggested that the Green Street was a challenging and restricted site that might not satisfy the future needs of the States of Jersey Police. The Panel wished to examine whether the various police departments, which are currently accommodated in a variety of buildings at Rouge Bouillon and Summerland, had been forced into a smaller combined area.

The scheme's architect from Taylor Young told the Panel The area of the Green Street site is no different to most police station sites in the UK. All sites of this nature require careful planning to ensure the optimum design solution. It would be extremely misleading to suggest this site is any more challenging to design for.'

Other issues the Panel sought to clarify were:

• Would projected increases in the population of the Island over the next 30/40 years incur a requirement for additional police officers and facilities?
• Would changing policing requirements and emerging new services in response to developments in society, (eg recent years have seen the need for increasing facilities for financial crime and domestic violence) indicate a risk that the planned accommodation would not be adequate for potential future requirements?

The Deputy Chief Officer of Police maintained that the Green Street site provided all the facilities which could foreseeably be required by the Police for the next thirty years. The Minister was confident that the measures incorporated into the scheme would ensure that the building provides flexibility for the future and allows for departmental expansion or changes to meet current day and future Policing requirements.

The Panel, however, remains unconvinced that there will not be a need at some point in the future to look for additional accommodation for the Police Force as new operational needs emerge. While this may not be an argument against the current plans at Green Street, the Panel believes that the major disadvantage that the site does not offer any possibility of future expansion ought to be acknowledged.

The Panel believes that, while the current plans will undoubtedly improve the working conditions for police officers and civilian staff, pressures on the office accommodation may increase in the future. There being no apparent opportunity to extend the planned building at Green Street there will be a risk of overcrowding in the new building. The inevitable solution will be that the States of Jersey Police will require at some point in the future additional premises.

Parking Issues: The Panel believes that there are significant issues with regard to parking provision, both for visitors and for police officers and civilian staff, which have not been fully considered.

The Panel believes that the current planned provision for two visitor spaces in Snow Hill is inadequate and too distant from the Police station. The Panel believes that the lack of convenient visitor parking in an area with congested parking provision will cause considerable frustration.

The Panel therefore recommends that the parking provision for visitors is reviewed with a view to providing greater and more convenient parking provision for visitors. The Panel believes that Green Street would be a better option for this purpose.

Provision for staff parking of vehicles will not be made at the headquarters site. Staff will be expected to park in public car parks and then walk to walk. The notion of providing a staff parking area large enough for circa 60 staff was removed in the 2009 review.

The Transport Assessment report prepared by Arups for the Stage D report on the project estimates that there will be an effective increase in parking demand for public car parking space of around 65 vehicles created by the new police headquarters.

The Panel believes that the impact of the additional parking demand created by the new police headquarters may have been downplayed. This will create additional pressure on the Green Street Car Park which is the most convenient parking provision for the new building. Police officer parking will displace commuter parking.

The Panel recommends that it would be sensible to acknowledge the need for staff parking in the area by designating a suitable area of Green Street to staff parking with additional provision for visitors.

1  INTRODUCTION:

The Panel's review was launched following a meeting with the retired Projects and Facilities Manager, States of Jersey Police, who had contacted a number of States Members to register his concerns regarding the selection of the Green Street car park as the location for the new Police Headquarters. Deputy J. Martin, who had lodged P.92/2010 seeking to review this selection, was included in this initial discussion.

The retired Projects and Facilities Manager had been involved in the development of the various options for the relocation and design of the new Police Headquarters since the inception of the project in 1999 until his retirement in June 2011. He indicated to the Panel that in his view the requirements of the States of Jersey Police were being compromised by being forced to fit into a constrained site. He thought that the plans for the new Headquarters appeared to be driven by budget restraints rather than the best interests of the Police Force. He pointed out that the original budget for the project, which had been set at £21m in 2000, remained at that level in 2012 and had not been increased to allow for inflation and had been in effect scaled down due to the costs of various feasibility studies carried out since 2000.[1]

Following this meeting the Panel wrote to the Minister for Home Affairs requesting the opportunity to discuss identified concerns which included:

• The security of the building and stand-off distances from neighbouring properties
• The lack of secondary access to the building
• The location of the forensic garage
• Archive storage facilities
• Parking for the Police fleet of cars
• Visitor parking
• The lack of expansion possibilities

The Panel was clear that concerns relating to the location and planning issues, such as traffic implications, the impact of the building on its immediate environment and the loss of public parking at Green Street, were not within its remit. The Panel was focussed on matters relating to the internal design of the building and the question whether the proposed building would adequately meet the requirements of the States of Jersey Police Force over the next twenty to thirty years.

The Panel met the Minister for Home Affairs, the States of Jersey Police and Property Holdings on two occasions to discuss these concerns and the Minister provided three detailed written responses to Panel's questions[2]. The Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, a representative of the Police Association and an architect from Taylor Young also attended one of the meetings.

The Panel was given access to detailed documents regarding the planning for the building[3]. These were provided in confidence due to the security implications of a police building. The meetings with the Minister were therefore necessarily conducted in private.

The Panel considered whether a public hearing was required, according to usual Scrutiny procedures. Members assessed whether a public process would provide additional clarification without duplicating the enquiries that had already been undertaken in previous meetings and correspondence with the Minister. Members were also conscious of the limited timescale prior to the debate on P.92/2012 and believed it was important to provide a comprehensive report on their findings in time for that debate. Members concluded that, on this occasion, a public hearing would require a delay to the States debate and was unlikely to result in additional information.

Although not specifically requesting submissions from the public, due to the narrow remit of the review which was focussed on police requirements, the Panel received two submissions which are posted on the Scrutiny website.

The next part of the report outlines the background to the development of the Green Street site as an option for the Police Headquarters.

The report then focuses the key questions posed by the Panel in the course of its review and provides, as far as possible without compromising confidential considerations, the responses received from the Ministerial team.

2. BACKGROUND

Property Holdings provided the Panel with an overview of the sites examined as part of the Police relocation project since its inception in 1999 to the selection of Green Street. This overview is included in the appendix to this report.

In 2009, after some years in which no agreement on a site was achieved, the new leadership of the States of Jersey Police, supported by the Director of Property Holdings, undertook a comprehensive and detailed review of the specifications for the Police building, in particular the space requirements, in order to ensure that it was efficient, fit-for-purpose and reflected best practice for contemporary office design. This review resulted in an approximate reduction in the internal floor area of 30% and financial savings on estimated construction costs of £5.3m. [4]

The review was signed off by the States of Jersey Police as fit for purpose and meeting its requirements. This is the brief used for the Lime Grove project, the subsequent concept options review and Green Street feasibility study. The implications of this review are discussed below.

At a meeting with the Panel the Assistant Director, Property Holdings, described the processes following the loss of the Lime Grove site in August 2011. He said that the project team had worked hard to quickly develop a new proposal following the loss of the Lime Grove site. Property Holdings had reviewed the options that had been considered since the inception of the project in 1999, working with a police specialist architect.[5]

The documentation provided to the Panel detailed the criteria, used by the Project Team in August 2011, against which the assessment of the sites options was assessed:

• Location: Centrally located with good access to transport – on or near the ring road. Compatible with adjoining premises
• Requirements: ability to meet the majority of requirements or office requirements at a minimum, including parking for operational vehicles and visitors

• Planning: Site would be acceptable to Planning for its intended use
• Availability: Site is available immediately or could be made available
• Political: The site would be acceptable politically
• States owned: the site is in States ownership
• Build cost: Extent to which site supports cost effective development
• Forgone value: value of site for other uses[6]

As a result of this work five options were identified to be progressed in more detail in the Concept Site Option Appraisal report (September 2012):

• Full new build on Green St Car Park[7]
• Provision of office facilities at Maritime House and refurbishment at the Rouge Bouillon site
• Separate custody suite on Lempriere St.
• Separate custody suite on the Rouge Bouillon site.
• Full build on the Summerland Site.

The Concept Report stated that: A new build on a single, States-owned site would be the preferred way forward.' The Green Street Car Park would be the preferred option of the States of Jersey Police and would meet all requirements in a timely manner. The other benefits identified for this site were:

• This option would avoid any need for decanting' staff an functions from existing premises until the building is complete for occupation
• It is expected that operational and organisational benefits and efficiencies would accrue from having all police functions in a single location, making the management and coordination of policing activities more effective

• This option is likely to offer the best value option in terms of overall cost of build, project programme, whole life costing and future operation, particularly as this option requires the management and maintenance of only one building
• This option would render Summerland site surplus to Home Affairs requirements making it potentially available for alternative uses and/or disposal
• This solution would also free up part of the Rouge Bouillon site for alternative use for the future
• Likely to be delivered within available budget subject to further feasibility studies and value engineering.

The issues with the building were identified as follows:

• The one build solution was the most challenging on the project budget
• The solution reduced car parking in Green Street and would require modifications to the car park itself
• Alongside this option it would be advantageous to maintain a small shop-front' office in St Helier town centre to provide a central contact point for the public. This is not included in the option or the costs
• It has been assumed that the storage requirements of the States of Jersey Police (as identified in the area brief) will be accommodated either through electronic scanning or through securing an off-site location, such as La Collette
• Public access will be a challenge and consideration would have to be given to arrangements for members of the public visiting the building, possibly through providing access from Green Street car park[8]

It was not part of the Panel's brief for this review to examine in detail the alternative options considered at this stage. In summary, the option to refurbish and extend Maritime House, as a two site option, with a new custody suite at Rouge Bouillon, would take much longer to deliver and was less efficient for the Police operationally. The Lempriere Street option for a separate custody suite was discounted as too small. The use of Rouge Bouillon for a custody suite would require the demolition of the old school building which would delay the project and introduce further costs. The option for a full build on the Summerland site would meet the full requirements of the States of Jersey Police but at a higher cost and would involve decanting staff, take a longer period of time and leave the Police in inadequate accommodation for a longer period.[9]

The Police HQ Political Steering Group concluded that Green Street was the best option and should be the subject of a detailed feasibility study. This was developed by the architects ( Taylor Young) who had strong experience with developing police buildings, and a local design consultancy (also with experience of police buildings), following discussions with the Home Office to ensure the design met modern standards and a series of workshops with the police at various levels. This stage involved constructive exchange with Property Holdings whose role was to challenge stated aspirations to ensure that they were reasonable within modern office design strategy. A visit was made to view modern new police stations in the UK (e.g. Carlisle).

The Minister said that the feasibility study demonstrated that a Police HQ could be delivered on the Green Street site.

The outcome of this work was both an accommodation schedule and initial layouts that were signed off by the States of Jersey Police. This was followed by a detailed design process leading to the submission of the Planning Application in August 2012. This again included a comprehensive consultation process with staff to review floor plans and detailed room layouts. Again, these were subsequently signed off by the States of Jersey Police in advance of making the application.' [10]

The Minister stated that if Green Street car park site had been available earlier it would have been the preferred option compared to Lime Grove as the car park option combined the custody suite and administrative offices on the same site, which contributed to further financial savings and allowed for the development of the Rouge Bouillon site for housing. It had the added advantage that issues such as traffic and location had already been considered as part of the planning for the Lime Grove option.

Public consultation in February 2012 and pre-application discussions with Planning resulted in a number of key design changes. These are published on the States website.[11] The main changes included:

• Reducing the height by one storey and building over the custody suite to compensate
• Seeking Home Office guidance on the solution to provide natural light to the cells,
• Moving the building further from Lime Grove apartments, from 2.5m to 6.7m[12]

The Minister pointed out that the public perception that the building had been further constrained due to the removal of the fifth storey proposed in the first plans for the Green Street site was erroneous. A reconfiguration of the building had enabled the retention of the originally proposed internal area.

The Minister informed the Panel that the current design fully met the requirements of the States of Jersey Police as specified in the 2009 review. The Green Street design had not resulted in any reduction to the overall floor area but in fact provided a small increase in overall area. In 2009 the internal occupied area brief for the Police HQ had set a spatial requirement for 5,303 sq m. The current design at Green Street had an internal occupied area of 5,457 sqm.

The Deputy Chief Officer of Police maintained that, if an alternative site was selected for the Police station, the internal area would not be any greater than the proposal at Green Street. He pointed out that the current buildings at Rouge Bouillon and Summerland, though large, were very inefficient in their use of space and incapable of flexibility. Thus it had been possible to reduce the area requirements for the new building without compromising on the facilities for the Police Force. He said that the area specification on which the Green Street option was based had been reduced from its original specification as a result of a review in 2009 and was not in response to any constraints posed by the Green Street site.

3. KEY ISSUES

This section of the report records the questions raised by the Panel in the course of its review of the proposed scheme.

1. BUDGET RESTRAINTS

Key Panel Concern: The budget for the project was set in 2000 at £21m but has not been revised for inflation[13] effectively restricting the budget available for the project. The original specifications for the Police building have been reduced accordingly. The Panel wished to examine whether this reduction had compromised the requirements of the States of Jersey Police in any way.

Has the project had been driven by budget restraints rather than the best interests of the Police?

The Deputy Chief Officer of Police explained that the design of the Green Street building was based on the specifications agreed by the States of Jersey Police following a review he had undertaken of police requirements in 2009. He maintained that cost factors had not led to the removal of any essential features in the design of the police station - all the police requirements identified in his review in 2009 had been incorporated into the current design in Green Street.[14]

What impact did the 2009 review have on police specifications?

The brief prior to 2009 could be described as including out-dated thinking and over specification of space in a number of areas, in particular the provision of individual offices, cellular departmental areas and office accommodation generally.[15]

The Deputy Chief Officer said that the 2009 review had been important in clearing obstacles to the police building project. It been one of his first tasks on arriving in Jersey as Deputy Chief Officer (March 2009) from previous service with Dyfed-Powys and West Mercia where he had had some experience with developing a new police HQ and custody suites. A two day workshop had been undertaken with all stakeholders present involving engagement with individual departments and sections one by one with the section head typically including 2 or 3 representatives from their area in the process.

He had concluded that the design which had been developed over the previous decade was over-specified and did not take full account of developments in modern policing standards. He believed that the over-specification had been a major factor in the difficulty and delays in identifying a suitable site.

The review in 2009 had resulted in a 30% reduction in the internal floor area and a saving of approximately £5.3m on estimated construction costs.[16]

The Minister told the Panel:

It is important to note that this exercise was not aimed at fundamentally changing the user requirement. Rather it was about ensuring an appropriate provision of space through the application of modern standards and more flexible working arrangements.[17]

What were the chief elements removed from the specification as a result of the 2009 review?

Key changes included:

• Reductions in proposed areas allocated for individual offices (e.g. from 12 sq m to 6sq m).
• Introducing space standards which supported open-plan working in areas of multiple occupation. This included the removal of some individual offices from the schedule.

• A small number of spaces regarded as not required or which could be provided through alternative means were removed (e.g. such as an 8sq m space allocated to a visiting driving instructor).
• Some conference spaces reduced in area, but made more flexible through the use of flexible acoustic partitions.
• The storage area for recovered cars was identified as being off-site.
• A number of storage spaces being combined to make better use of building space (e.g. an exhibit store consolidated with a forensic store and the use of roller storage within the Public Protection Unit).
• A significant reduction in the area requirement for locker areas (both operational and those identified for general staff), based on latest police locker design and the correct spatial configurations.
• The notion of providing a staff parking area large enough for c. 60 staff was removed.
• The review process also resulted in the addition of new space requirements considered of value to the long term future of the new police building, such as secure evidence store and covert monitoring suite.[18]

Were any elements of the 2009 review removed from the specification during the design process for the Green Street site?

Ministerial response: The 2009 schedule was developed in the absence of an agreed site, single or split. It was therefore natural that some of the identified requirements relating to the external spaces had been modified as a result of the actual solution identified. Whilst external spaces regarding operational, motor-bike and cycle parking were included, there had been some changes as a result of the Green Street proposal:

• It has not been possible to provide parking for 7 visitors on site. Instead reliance is to be made on parking in the local area, including allocated spaces. It should be noted Home Office Design Guidance recommends any visitor car parking is located

at least 10 metres away from the building in order to prevent potential terrorism and risks from organised criminality. It is common for city centre police stations in the UK, to make no allowance for visitor car parking.

• In 2009, it was envisaged that 55 operational vehicles would be required. Changes in the way the fleet is developing means that the 42 spaces proposed are sufficient for the future.
• Space for specialised oversized vehicles was identified, however it was envisaged that these could be parked off-site (see below).
• Benefits were identified as a result of locating the Scenes of Crime garage at a separate location.

In terms of the internal areas, the Minister commented:

it must be appreciated that the process of design and development results in refinement of the design both in terms of changes in the functions of SoJP (for example departments had changed and merged) and in terms of the specific design of the building and in terms of the need to accommodate specialised spaces such as plant, equipment, generators and UPS facilities etc.

Departmental synergies were identified as the brief developed, which allowed common functions and/or activities to be co-located. This supported the adoption of modern office working methods and facilitated a more efficient use of space. A notable example of this efficient space planning approach is the development of the Force Intelligence Bureau configurations. For example, shared and common activities have been arranged to allow the use of hot desking for specialist and support staff removing the need for separate workstations in technical areas. In addition configuring intelligence teams in a horse shoe arrangement has allowed meeting room spaces to be shared, supporting the philosophy of providing flexible multipurpose accommodation. [19]

Panel comments

Members note that there has been considerable reduction in the spatial specifications of the planned police buildings since the original concept in 2000, a total of 30% reduction in the planned internal occupied floor area. This has been introduced with the aim of adopting modern office working methods and facilitating a more efficient use of space. It also indicates a sharp increase in workplace density and members were concerned that this might signal a crowded workplace environment.

Further research has shown that this follows a trend in UK offices. The British Council of Offices, launching its new Guide to Specification in May 2009 revealed that the average density of workplaces had increased 40% since 1997, when the average office density (the net area per person) was 16.6 sqm compared to 11.8 sqm today.

Richard Kauntze, Chief Executive of the BCO, said:

It is a misconception that higher office densities mean we are all packed in like sardines. The increase in density has come about because, on the whole, we are working differently and using space more effectively. The cellular, inflexible offices of the 70s and early 80s have gradually been replaced by open-plan, team-orientated environments with a range of facilities from kitchens to gyms. We are a knowledge-based service economy where comfort and amenity play a significant role in workplace productivity.[20]

This research appears to support the line taken by the States of Jersey Police in their review of specifications in 2009. Nevertheless, members have reservations based on the consideration that the Police might have specific requirements in office buildings which were not the same as commercial office buildings.

The Panel has also taken notice therefore of the UK Home Office guidelines on Police building design.[21] This guide recognises the importance of achieving a balance between

workplace layout, the move towards more collaborative ways of working and value for money in the use of resources:

The layout of the workplace has a significant impact on the way an organisation functions: the way staff interact with each other and with the external environment and the way the business functions. It has demonstrable and measurable financial and commercial consequences for the organisation and spatially efficient layouts can deliver clear benefits.

Recent changes in workplace planning have moved away from cellular offices to office layouts which encourage a more open, collaborative way of working, with flexible space being the key requirement for the way organisations work. Within the public sector, pressures on public spending have grown with a focus on delivering front end services and maximising the efficiency of operational expenditure. The workplace therefore needs to represent value for money in the use of resources.

Value for money in this respect is defined as getting the right balance between cost and quality to meet stated user requirements.

Working environments have become increasingly dynamic; IT and technology developments have increased the workstyle opportunities to staff: the physical environment needs to be readily adaptable to meet these changes. It is now accepted that the physical workplace and its features, such as layout, comfort, appearance and functionality, affect staff's ability and motivation to work and also the quality of work that they do. The drive is for workplaces that:

• use space efficiently
• are accessible: adopting inclusive design principles
• are efficient to run and maintain (assessed over the whole life cycle)
• are energy efficient in their operation and sustainable
• support people in their work – help them to operate in an effective manner[22]

The design guide acknowledges the psychological effect of buildings:

• The building should not be overcrowded or cramped.
• It should be a pleasure to use, and should reduce stress for users.
• It should not be noisy or distracting
• Circulation and common areas should be pleasant.
• There should be good views out of the building to well landscaped areas.
• There should be comfortable environmental conditions, with a degree of personal control.
• Indoor air quality should feel fresh.
• The building should make you think
• It should engender a steady, but dynamic, pace of working
• The building should lift the spirits[23]

The Panel also noted Section 12 of the design guide which sets out in detail the principles to be applied to General Office Accommodation. This section describes how open plan offices can improve efficiency and working relationships:

Office accommodation should aid the performance of those using it by supporting their work processes through the way that space is arranged. The ideal office arrangement will vary between civilian roles within police buildings, police officers and specific crime teams. The challenge is in balancing the force's requirement for interaction and privacy in its office accommodation, and therefore needing to balance the mix of open-plan, cellular offices, general office support spaces and specific dedicated crime or team rooms and private interview rooms.[24]

The Scrutiny Panel is not qualified to assess the extent to which the internal design of the current building has achieved the implementation of the design principles set out in the aforementioned documents. It is for the States of Jersey Police to be confident that they have considered and achieved every significant detail of their requirements. The States of Jersey Police have signed off the design accordingly.

That said, the Panel identified a number of issues which they wished to clarify regarding the implications of elements which had been removed from the original specifications. These included

• the removal of staff parking;
• the combination of storage areas
• the impossibility of providing visitor parking on site; and
• the off-site location of the Scenes of Crime garage and archive storage, as well as an area for recovered cars.

These issues are discussed later in the report. Staff input and buy in

One further issue to be discussed before leaving this section of the report is the input and buy in from staff. The Police Buildings Design Guide recognises that this is essential for good office design.[25]

The Panel was provided with a schedule of meetings held during the consultation process together with the various officers participating. The Deputy Chief Officer of Police told the Panel that detailed consultation with police staff had been conducted on a department by department basis and had looked at issues including the adjacencies of offices and the space requirements. He said that staff feedback had provided many useful suggestions which had been incorporated into design changes (for example, the design storage space and processes for dealing with stolen property).[26]

The President of the Police Association confirmed that the consultation with staff had been extensive and effective. Early designs had been changed and improved in response to staff comments. Plans had been made available in open spaces in the Police station for officers

to comment. He was confident that all significant issues raised by officers had been addressed and had not received any negative feedback about the latest designs.[27]

Were there any significant reservations expressed by stakeholders at the 2009 workshop relating to aspects of this reduction in specifications?

Ministerial response: There were no significant reservations from the various departments. The Minister said that the workshops were established to review and challenge the proposed area schedule in an open and interactive environment:

In this environment there was clearly much discussion about the original area schedules and individuals had, at times, to justify specific requirements they had identified. The focus of this was aligning areas to accepted modern office space standards and seeking to deliver the kind of efficient use of space that can be achieved in a more modern building. As part of this process there was clearly much debate and of course questions were raised, for example about the greater use of open plan offices and the Scientific Support Unit about the layout of laboratories and workstations.[28]

Panel comment

The Panel has to rely on the statements from the senior management and the Police Association regarding the lack of any remaining concerns on the part of police officers and civilian staff. The Panel has not received any indication of reservations to the contrary. Members, however, would have appreciated the opportunity for further feedback and confirmation from staff at various levels of the organisation but recognise that it is necessary to accept the confines of formal reporting processes. Nevertheless, members believe that the issue of parking for police officers is one which may not have been fully considered and will return to this issue later in this report.

2. CONSTRAINTS OF THE GREEN STREET SITE

Key Panel concerns: Green Street appears to be a restricted site that may not satisfy the future needs of the States of Jersey Police. The Panel wished to examine whether the various police departments, which are currently accommodated in a variety of buildings at Rouge Bouillon and Summerland, had been forced into a smaller combined area.

The population of the Island is projected to grow significantly over the next 30/40 years and this may incur a requirement for additional police officers.

In addition members were conscious that policing requirements have changed over the years in response to developments in society, eg recent years have seen the need for increasing facilities for financial crime and domestic violence.

Also large scale investigations, eg the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry or the Midvale Road murders, may require dedicated additional space.

Members believed that new accommodation was likely to be required for emerging new services. Members believed that the pressures on the Financial Crimes Unit, in particular, were likely to grow in the future and there was a risk that the planned accommodation would no longer be adequate for potential future requirements.

Did the constraints of the Green Street site pose a particularly difficult challenge to the architects?

The Panel asked the architect to comment on the suggestion that the Green Street site was a very difficult site to develop in order to fit in all the requirements for the police. The architect from Taylor Young provided the following statement:

The area of the Green Street site is no different to most police station sites in the UK. All sites of this nature require careful planning to ensure the optimum design solution. It would be extremely misleading to suggest this site is any more challenging to design for.

A number of UK forces have relocated to out of town locations over the last fifteen years. However, this approach necessitates the provision of an additional town or city centre neighbourhood station. As a result site selection strategies have shifted recently. It is now considered more appropriate to locate on the periphery of the town or city centre, avoiding the need for an additional facility with limited access to resources and operational support.

The proposal for the new police headquarters for States of Jersey Police echoes current strategic thinking with regard to locating major operational buildings.[29]

Will the Green Street scheme meet the requirements of the States of Jersey Police for the next 30/40 years?

The Minister told the Panel that he was satisfied that the proposed scheme had been designed with the future in mind:

The space standards adopted for the headquarters building reflect best practice guidelines for UK police buildings and British Council for Offices recommendations[30]. These design principles support the need to provide flexible serviced office accommodation, facilitating modern working conditions capable of adaptation to meet the changing demands of modern policing. I set out below some specific examples of where the building provides flexibility for the future:

• The new custody suite has been expanded from the current 12 cells to 20. The States of Jersey Police has identified that this will accommodate likely demand for at least 30+ years, whilst observing all the necessary guidance and regulations with which the States of Jersey Police need to be compliant.
• An expansion allowance of 10% has been incorporated into the areas of all office areas.
• The control room has been deliberately increased in size to cater for the possibility of future expansion as a joint control room in the future and could be increased in size by 4 desks (from the current 8) to accommodate this requirement.

• All partitions are lightweight and can be changed simply to accommodate changes in layouts and requirements for the future.
• The building contains a number of flexible spaces, including gold and silver command rooms, incident rooms, training rooms, and meeting rooms which can be adapted for a variety of uses.
• The service risers, raised floors and ceiling voids provide a high degree of flexibility and have been specified to cater for expansion in electricity, IT cabling and other services.
• The building design includes more CCTV and access control points than specified to cater for future expansion in security provision.[31]

The Minister was confident that the measures identified above would ensure that the build allows for departmental expansion or changes to meet current day and future Policing requirements. He told the Panel that, operationally, States of Jersey Police staffing had seen little or no growth since 1988. The numbers of personnel within the States of Jersey Police had reduced in recent years and was unlikely to change dramatically in the long term. In setting the requirements for the new building, the States of Jersey Police had carefully considered the implications of future proofing' in their user requirement.[32]

The Deputy Chief Officer of Police maintained that the Green Street site provided all the facilities which could foreseeably be required by the Police for the next thirty years. The building contained an appropriate mix of office spaces which could be adapted for a variety of uses. The design plans allow for a greater degree of flexibility in using the building which the current building (Rouge Bouillon) prevents because of its internal limitations. For example, if required in cases of large investigations (such as the Midvale Rd murders or Historic Abuse enquiry), conference and training rooms situated on the top floor could be adapted for use by mutual aid teams and/or multi-agency teams. Although it had been necessary in the past to provide facilities in adjacent areas at Summerland as the requirements of specific teams, eg PPI and CJU had emerged, the new facilities would provide adequate and flexible accommodation for all foreseeable requirements.

The Deputy Chief Officer said that the main expansion within SOJP in recent times had not been down to an increase in staff numbers, but rather was due to the constraints and inflexibility of the existing buildings. It is for this reason that the expansion to Summerland had been required in 2003. Overall numbers of CID officers had reduced, not increased, despite the creation of new discreet teams.

He added that by taking advantage of new and mobile data technologies, officers could prepare reports without the need to return to the police station, enabling higher public visibility, more efficient working and a reduction in desk requirements33.

An expansion allowance of 10% has been incorporated into the areas of all office spaces. What exactly does this mean in terms of provision for additional personnel and additional computer technology?

Ministerial response: The 10% spatial tolerance related to office areas only and not in personnel. This means that desk configurations can be reorganised and compressed to provide space for an additional increase of workstation numbers whilst still meeting the requirements of Health and Safety minimum standards and British Council of Offices guidance.[33] The Minister gave the following specific example from the Operational Support Unit to illustrate future flexibility:

The scheme has 16 workstations within an open plan area of 82m², which equates to 14.9m3 per workstation. British Council of Offices guidance suggests that a typical office workstation that is fully used throughout the working day requires an allocation of 11m3. Adopting this guidance would allow an additional 5 workstations to be added if required – a 20% increase in utilisation. [34]

The service risers, raised floors and ceiling voids enable a high degree of flexibility to meet future service layout changes and have been specified to cater for future expansion in power, IT cabling, communication systems and other services.

33 Meeting dated 16th October 2012

The design proposal includes comprehensive provision for the use of technology. In addition, the building design includes more CCTV and access control points than specified to cater for future expansion in security provision.

What consideration has been given to the potential implications of population projections?

Ministerial response: At present, States of Jersey Police has approximately 330 police officers and police support staff, which equates to 3.37 personnel per 1,000 population.

The 2012 Jersey Population report prepared by the States Statistics Unit presents a range of population projections for the future. As yet, no firm population targets have been agreed by the States but the likely range of options allow for population growth to between 113,100 to 119,200 by 2035.

The Minister told the Panel that future policing would rely less on the perceived need for traditional' office accommodation and more on the kind of flexible working environment that is provided by the proposed new building:

One of the key challenges facing States of Jersey Police will be the demand on response and reassurance policing driven by demographic change. The Force is cognisant of the issues likely to be associated with an ageing population, more urbanisation and increasing diversity linked to inward migration.

Keeping officers out in the community is a key element of policing strategy in addressing these challenges. With a growing emphasis on embedding local officers in local communities, the opportunities presented by new technology and mobile data and co- operation with the Honorary Police, our future workplace strategy will continue to promote more flexible working and facilities.

Simply put, there is not a direct correlation between the level of population and the number of Police Officers. Jersey has the added advantage of the Honorary Policing system, which plays an important and significant part in community policing and supporting the SoJP in emergencies and major public events.[35]

The Minister stated in a letter to the Panel that crime figures in Jersey and throughout the British Isles had been dropping and were expected to continue to drop over the next ten years. Therefore he did not anticipate any significant increase in the size of the States of Jersey Police force in the immediate future. What evidence is there for a decline in crime figures in Jersey? [36]

Ministerial response:

For a number of years crime figures in Jersey and throughout the British Isles have been dropping. The expectation is that over the next ten years they will continue to drop. This is because of technological changes. The reduction in the use of cheques and the advent of chip and pin for cards has greatly reduced cheque and card offences. The advent of electronic keys for cars has greatly reduced taking and driving away offences. The use of security cameras in commercial premises and on the streets has had an effect too. We also have the evidence of the massive reduction in youth crime in recent years which will have an effect on adult crime for the next 10 years. Beyond ten years is difficult to predict, but I do not anticipate a substantial rise in crime unless there were a big change in social conditions due to a major financial downturn.  In these circumstances it is hard to see that the Island could afford to increase the size of the police force above 10% from what has been planned for, which is 238 police officers.[37]

The Minister provided the following graph showings trends in recorded crime in England and Wales compared to Jersey from 2002 to 2011.[38] The downward trend in recorded crime in

Jersey is consistent with that in the UK.[39] Furthermore, the figures up to mid-October 2012 show a further 9% reduction on the previous year.

Comparison of Recorded Crime in England and Wales, 2002 – 11

The Minister told the Panel:

Jersey  enjoys  low  levels  of  crime  which  means  that  the  overall  crime  rate  is susceptible to short term fluctuations, which can be caused by a number of variables –

• Individual offenders who engage in intensive spates of criminal activity can have a disproportionate impact on recorded crime
• The introduction of new legislation can introduce new offences or replace older ones
• Changes in the Home Office Counting Rules can also cause changes to the volume of offences recorded41

• Changes in policing strategy and levels of victim confidence can also impact on the sheer volume of crimes recorded.

Additionally,  the  reduction  in  youth  crime,  which  I  have  publicised  this  year,  is significant in terms of anticipated crime levels for the next 10 years.

Given these factors, it is important to interpret patterns in crime over longer periods and understand the drivers that underpin short term fluctuations.

Overall, States of Jersey Police is confident that long term change in driving down traditional types of crime (burglary, vehicle crime, etc) is sustainable because the capacity and capability is in place to target key offenders, protect victims and police key hotspots.

It is important, however, to recognise that whilst traditional volume crime may be decreasing, the complexity of the policing challenge always evolves. Organised crime and e-crime, for example, will pose emerging threats to which States of Jersey Police will need to adapt.[40]

.

Panel comment

The Panel remains unconvinced that there will not be a need at some point in the future to look for additional accommodation for the Police Force as new operational needs emerge. While this may not be an argument against the current plans at Green Street, the Panel believes that the major disadvantage that the site does not offer any possibility of future expansion ought to be acknowledged.

The  Panel  believes  that,  while  the  current  plans  will  undoubtedly  improve  the  working conditions for police officers and civilian staff, pressures on the office accommodation may increase in the future. There being no apparent opportunity to extend the planned building at

41 The Panel notes the Minister's caution that Home Office Counting Rules are subject to change and that this can cause changes in the number of offences recorded. The Panel has been unable to assess whether this factor has had a significant effect on the crime statistics

Green Street there will be a risk of overcrowding in the new building. The inevitable solution will be that the States of Jersey Police will require at some point in the future additional premises.

The Panel notes that the 10% expansion allowance mentioned above provides, not for any additional extension to the building, but for yet more intensive use of the internal office space. Members would be concerned that this might mitigate against the principle of providing a pleasant yet efficient working environment.

The Panel notes that the 2009 review resulted in a significant reduction in the size specifications for the building. Whilst it is clear that the new planned accommodation will provide much improved working conditions for the police, the Panel believes that there would be a risk of compromising some of these gains if too much pressure was placed on the working environment by further reductions in spatial arrangements.

The suggestion that new technology will lead to a reduction in the numbers of officers requiring office space to write reports is also regarded with some scepticism. The Panel is not convinced that the provision of new technology in police cars will significantly alter the preference for police officers to return to the Police station to write reports.

Working in a crowded and cramped environment, should the need to provide additional workstations become apparent in the future as operational requirements change and expand, would not be conducive to good morale within the police force nor effective working.

3. SPECIFIC POLICE USER REQUIREMENTS

The Panel understands that the majority of administrative policing functions do not require a bespoke build' and can be accommodated in standard office accommodation. However, some operational features do require specialist consideration. The following essential features were set out in the Concept Site Optional Appraisal report, which was the basis for the discussions of the site options in September 2011:

Access to the building for different purposes and by different routes, eg by detainees, operational officers, covert operations, bail respondents, vulnerable witnesses, deliveries and general public enquiries

Flexibility of accommodation to cope with operational responses to increased criminal activity, tension or other intelligence indicators

The ability to plan and manage major incidents and deploy significant numbers of police resources

Access to information through appropriate technology services including CCTV

The building must be capable of continuing operation in times of major disruption from any source, eg natural disaster, organised criminal activity, civil disturbance, power failure, etc

Prisoner management arrangements must incorporate all of the latest requirements to ensure safe handling of detainees and provide safe and secure facilities for legal representation and other criminal justice processes

Police officer facilities are necessary to handle a 24 x 7 shift operation, cope with higher volumes when necessary, enable appropriate access through the building with sufficient space to allow appropriate equipment to be carried unhindered

Provision of safe and secure areas for police and some staff vehicles, and storage and inspection areas for seized vehicle property

Provision of security around the building for overall access control and management of secure access to internal areas that require segregation

The need to avoid undue ability to overlook the building or see into secure areas

Avoidance of adjacent areas that could be used to target the building or park unauthorised vehicles close by

Provision of an armoury and other storage for specialist police equipment[41]

The subsequent Stage D report for the planning application set out the following list of stringent States of Jersey Police requirements for the Police HQ:

Custody suite at ground floor level

Custody suite on one floor only with level access throughout

Natural light must be provided to all cells

Design solution must allow effective operational vehicle movement

Custody vehicle movement must be separate from operational vehicles

Van dock must be positioned in a discreet location and provide a sterile environment

Provide secure and discreet parking for operational and covert vehicles

Provide a clear separation between public access and secure operational areas

Manage public access to enquiry areas and custody through a clear design philosophy

Order office accommodation to support operational demands and obligations

Co locate linked departments to support and improve operational efficiency

The Panel understands, from its examination of the planning documents provided and discussions with the ministerial team, that these requirements have been met in the current plans. Members raised a number of specific questions based on certain elements of the above list and the key issues identified by the Panel are discussed below

1. CUSTODY CELLS

The provision of a modern custody suite which conforms to modern standards has been a long awaited improvement on current inadequate provision at Rouge Bouillon. The new custody suite will be expanded from the current 12 to 20 cells, including 2 vulnerable person cells and 2 dry cells (for detainee suspected of drug possession).

Key Panel concern: The retired Projects and Facilities Manager informed the Panel that the original scheme had provided for a total of 28 cells. This total had been arrived after due consultation with all interested parties and future requirements. He noted that the specification for 28 cells in the early plans had been included following consultation with

custody officers at the time who were faced with the pressures of high numbers of detainees on a regular basis due to high levels of crime and also disturbances at football matches.[42]

When was the decision taken to reduce the number of custody cells from 28 to 20 and what was the justification for this reduction?

Ministerial response: The States of Jersey Police said that after researching this matter they had not found specific reference to 28 cells in the recent history of the project. Whilst there might have been an outline plan to provide 28 cells in a very early concept scheme, possibly the pre-2005 waterfront scheme (the Island Site), more recent iterations of the project had not included this number. An outline brief produced in 2005 identified 18 cells (though value engineering processes at the time appear to have reduced this from an original 20). In 2006, a full planning submission was made on a scheme which included 18 cells. This scheme was signed off by the States of Jersey Police and the then Home Affairs Committee.

In 2009, prior to the review of the area requirements this figure was identified as 20 cells and this figure was maintained during the review process. Whilst it is unclear whether there had been a requirement for 28 cells in the past, all detailed design and specification work since 2005 has included 18 or latterly 20 cells as the brief. There has therefore not been a significant reduction in cell numbers over this time.[43]

The Deputy Chief Officer of Police told the Panel that current detention numbers indicated a peak requirement of 16 cells in normal circumstances. Detainees might be doubled up in times of acute pressures. Alternative additional provision is possible in co-operation with the Magistrate's Court or at the Prison (provided committal has been approved by a Jurat). He added that a review of processes was aiming to reduce custody times to the minimum and to charge or release as quickly as possible.[44]

Graphs which show average and maximum numbers of those detained in custody between 2008 and 2012 are contained in the appendix.

The Panel was provided with details of the average times in custody, as set out below

Panel comment: The Panel was able to study the custody layout in detail and was assured that the custody suite had been developed in accordance with Home Office guidelines and detailed consultation with custody practitioners. The current design would be subject to further refinement at detailed design stage. Custody staff movement patterns would be modelled in detail and this would lead to revisions of the existing layout.[45]The Panel has no further issues with his matter.

2. OFF- SITE GARAGE AND ARCHIVE STORAGE

The proposal is to locate archive storage, oversized vehicles parking and Scenes of Crime garage at a States-owned warehouse-type location at La Collette which will become vacant in the near future.

Key  Panel  concern:  The  Panel  sought  confirmation  that  an  off-site location  for  these purposes was appropriate to police requirements.

Ministerial response: Essentially, this facility will provide a secure forensic examination area for vehicles or other large items; garaging for up to 5 oversize vehicles (command vehicle, large PSV, emergency equipment van); storage for emergency equipment / signage etc; storage for public order equipment / shields etc; space for caged archive storage of papers and large exhibits. The total internal area of this warehouse as currently configured is 750 sq m, however the States of Jersey Police is currently reducing its archive storage requirement (which is estimated to currently take up 1200sq m in a variety of locations). It could therefore be the case that not all this area is required and could be made available for alternate use by other departments.

A one-off capital cost of £30,000 has been allocated to provide security arrangements and facilities for the storage of Police archive material. (CCTV, Access systems and racking for files/equipment). This facility will involve an internal rental charge, depending on the area occupied. [46]

1. SCENES OF CRIME GARAGE

The Police require a dedicated and secure site for the forensic examination of seized vehicles. Is an off-site location suitable for this purpose?

Ministerial response: It was an early design decision, taken in 2009, prior to the selection of the Green Street car park option, that the forensic garage was not required on-site. Vehicles often required examination at the point of recovery and only on rare occasions would an extensive forensic examination be required.

2. STORAGE FOR RECOVERED VEHICLES

Vehicles recovered from road collisions require a space for examination and storage. Routine mechanical examinations are usually conducted at DVS, local garages or Parish yards. The Panel was informed that there was no intention to change these arrangements.49

Key Panel concern: The Panel noted that as part of the 2009 review the storage area for recovered cars was identified as being off-site. Members were concerned about the current lack of SOJ Police vehicle storage facilities – as a result the provision and costs of providing vehicle compounds are borne by the Parishes

Ministerial response: The Deputy Chief Officer of Police stated that the Police were aiming to reduce the numbers of seized vehicles. The Minister responsible for Property Holdings assured the Panel that he would review the current arrangements.

3. ARCHIVE STORAGE FACILITIES

A secure site is required for essential records of criminal investigations. Is an off-site location suitable for this purpose?

Ministerial response: The 2009 review of the project brief identified that archive storage should be located off-site in more appropriate facilities, rather than be included within an expensive re-build. This decision was therefore taken well before the development of the current scheme began. The States of Jersey Police were satisfied that this decision met its operational requirements.

The States of Jersey Police are currently working on significantly reducing its requirement for physical archive storage to assist in the compliance with the States of Jersey Records management initiative. In the future, the reduced number of archive records that need to be kept will be stored in more appropriate States-owned warehouse-style accommodation.[47]

3. STORAGE FACILITIES

The Panel noted that as part of the 2009 review a number of storage spaces were being combined to make better use of building space. The Panel is concerned that appropriate storage facilities should be compromised within the current plans in order to reduce spatial arrangements.

While recognising that there was a trend in offices to store more and more information electronically members were also conscious that there was a need in the police environment to retain physical evidence. In addition, particularly where there are shared or hot' desks in operation as planned in the new police headquarters there is a requirement for files and work in progress to be cleared and stored in such a way that officers can return to matters conveniently.

4. ACCESS TO THE BUILDING Public access  

Access to the building is required for different purposes and by different routes. There must be clear separation between public access and secure operational areas. Having primary public access in one location is vital for security.

Visitors to the building have two points of access; the main reception and a separate reception for those visiting custody. There is a separate staff entrance distinct from the Public Reception.

Bail respondents and vulnerable witnesses will have access through a secure separate entrance on La Route du Fort. This entrance will be monitored from the Enquiry Desk Custody Suite and supports Home Office Guidelines. For witnesses of a vulnerable nature, SOJP have arrangements already in place away from SOJP that will continue to sustain the high level of support offered.[48]

The Minister maintained that the Green Street site had the advantages of a fairly central location, being closer to the town centre than the current Rouge Bouillon site, within easy walking distance and with parking facilities at Snow Hill and Green Street within reach.

Pedestrian access will be maintained from Green Street car park to La Route du Fort through a pathway to the East of the new building.

Provision for two cars for disabled visitors has been allowed at the front of the building.[49]

Panel comment:

Members believe that the question of public access to the Police Headquarters at Green Street may have been underplayed. This issue is discussed in the next section of the report.

Police vehicles: Operational vehicles require secure and discreet parking. The design solution must allow for effective operational movement. Custody vehicle movement must be separate from operational vehicles.

Police vehicles have access to the building from La Route du Fort via a ramp to the rear of the building. There is a secure entrance to the custody suite for the transport of detainees and a separate access for operational police vehicles to the basement parking area where there was sufficient parking for 42 vehicles. The current fleet (54 cars) was to be reduced in numbers soon due to the advent of more motor bikes. The Panel was informed that there would never be a requirement to accommodate all police vehicles here as there were always vehicles on patrol and some in maintenance.[50]

Custody  vehicles  exit  the  building  from  the  opposite  side  of  the  building,  while  police operational vehicles exit at the same side of the building as the entry. Arrangements for emergency egress from the basement into the Green Street Car Park have been included in the scheme.[51]

Centeniers

Centeniers require frequent access to the Police station for charging purposes and attending operational briefings. Provision has been made for them within the operational parking area in the basement of the building. (The question of parking is considered in the next section)

risks from organised criminality. However, a compromise is required to achieve appropriate access for disabled visitors.

Centeniers would benefit from the provision of a dedicated room with the Custody Suite for Centeniers so that they can review paperwork in privacy prior to charging and write their reports. Whilst new secure electronic systems allowing the St Helier Honorary police to review the paperwork online without the need to access the Police station have reduced the numbers of visits by Centeniers there remains a frequent requirement to attend the Police station.

Discussions with the Chef de Police of St Helier revealed that the Honorary Police have not at this stage been consulted on the inclusion of their operational requirements in the building. The Panel was informed that the Honorary Police would be asked to comment at the next detailed design stage.

5. SECURITY AND STAND-OFF DISTANCES

Key Panel concern: Overlooking from Lime Grove apartments and the multi-storey car park might pose a security risk for the police building.

The Deputy Chief Officer told the Panel that a terrorism-risk assessment had been carried out to ensure that the building met criteria appropriate for the Island. As a result of this, appropriate mechanisms had been incorporated into the design of the building to comply with guidance and meet the identified level of threat for Jersey. For example, the stand-off provision had been increased at the front of the building, the car park would be walled off to prevent overlooking and there was lighting and CCTV coverage to monitor the exterior of the building. Further security measures were discussed with the Panel in confidence.[52]

Are there issues for the residents of Lime Grove apartments relating to CCTV coverage intruding on their property?

Ministerial response: A comprehensive range of measures has been incorporated into the design proposal to protect the privacy of the apartment occupants, prevent overlooking at all times and provide an effective CCTV system which gives the necessary security monitoring for the police station in a discreet and responsible manner, incorporating full data protection measures, designed in accordance with the Home Office CCTV operational manual requirements 2009 and States of Jersey CCTV Code of Practice 2005. States of Jersey Police will comply with all data protection requirements as defined by the Home Office Guidance and CCTV Code of Practice. CCTV cameras are operated under strict auditable guidelines to prevent any infringement of data protection legislation. As a matter of course, the primary purpose of the cameras will be to monitor vehicle movements at road level. Cameras will not routinely view Lime Grove Apartments for any reason other than crime prevention. This is identical to the existing CCTV systems operating across St Helier.

Other measures to protect privacy include the use of opaque glazing to all windows, fixed glazing apertures, ground level obscure privacy screening and acoustic attenuation techniques.[53]

6. MUSEUM

The Panel asked whether the provision of space for displaying artefacts had been considered. The Deputy Chief Officer suggested that room for display cabinets could be found in the conference areas.[54]

4. PARKING ISSUES

Key Panel concern: The Panel believes this is a significant issue which has not been fully considered. There are two aspects to this concern

1. PARKING PROVISION FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

Planned provision: With the exception of disabled visitors, there is no provision for public parking for visitors immediately outside the building. The scheme includes the allocation of 3 visitor parking spaces in Snow Hill car park and will provide specific facilities for those on motorbikes or on cycles.

Police station visitor spaces will be clearly marked as such and will be short stay spaces limited to 3hrs or less, depending on the requirements of the States of Jersey Police. It is anticipated these spaces will be chargeable on same basis as the rest of Snow Hill. The visitor spaces will regularly patrolled by TTS's parking control officers, who will keep records as to how customers use them.

Key Panel concern: The Panel believes that the current planned provision in Snow Hill is inadequate and too distant from the Police station. The Panel is particularly concerned that members of the public who arrive at the Police Headquarters in a distressed state (for example when they have been the victim of a crime, reporting criminal damage or injury or to collect family members from detention) will find access arrangements difficult, particularly at times of the day when nearby car parks are full or late at night and in the dark.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a significant number of distressed visitors to the current Police station at Rouge Bouillon regularly park as closely to the Reception as they can regardless of inconvenience of other drivers. This problem is likely to be exacerbated at the Green Street site and may cause traffic problems on Route du Fort or clog up the designated disabled provision in front of the building.

The Panel believes that current visitor parking provision is inadequate and the lack of convenient nearby parking in an area with congested parking provision will cause considerable frustration.

What assessment has been made of current visitor parking arrangements and any issues they might face?

Ministerial response: Traffic and highways engineers, Arup Consulting has estimated that peak visits by car would be approximately 10 per hour. The fact that visits to Police HQ are spread through the day and at weekends means that parking will be available in the local area. Green Street car park typically has capacity in afternoons, evenings and weekends and Route du Fort car park typically has 20 free spaces during the day. Access from Green Street will be possible from all levels without having to use the main car park entrance.

Parking will also be available for those on motor-bikes or cycles.

It is accepted accept that Green Street car park is full from 9:00am to early afternoon, so is likely to have limited availability for visitors over this period. This is why the proposal is to allocate three spaces in Snow Hill car park, specifically for visitors to the States of Jersey Police.

Developments in car-park technology are changing all the time, for example the introduction of the pay on exit system about to be trialled and this would result in greater flexibility in the use of car parks and allow other options to be considered.

The States of Jersey Police are satisfied with the arrangements for visitors. They maintain that this is not dissimilar to situations that prevail at many urban police stations in the United Kingdom, in that the new building is located close to the town centre, minutes away on foot. Furthermore, in terms of visitor parking, the new Police Headquarters is adopting what is the well established norm for public buildings within St Helier, with Cyril Le Marquand House, Social Security, Morier House, Housing and the Town Hall not having visitor parking. They pointed out that a number of these buildings have much higher visitor numbers than the Police HQ. As an example, the Social Security building on La Motte St in 2011 had a total of c.273, 000 visitors over 5 days a week (9:00am-5:00pm) with daily visitors anything between 1,000 and 1,300. This is over ten times the visitor numbers to Police HQ.

The States of Jersey Police has identified that it receives approximately 80 visitors per day over seven days. It estimates that visitors to Police HQ average out at 2,400 per month and 29,000 per annum.

It is accepted that visitor parking cannot be provided at the current scheme due to the nature of the proposed building and the need to provide appropriate passive counter-terrorism hardening to the building envelope makes visitor parking difficult to accommodate under the building.[55]

The following graph shows the spread of visitors to Police HQ through the day over a month. States of Jersey Police – Times of callers to Enquiry Desk

Panel comments and recommendation

The graph provided by the Minister confirms the Panel's concerns relating to the lack of visitor parking provision. The peak periods for visitors to the Enquiry Desk coincides with the times when the Green Street Car Park is currently at capacity. People attempting to call by car at the Enquiry Desk will inevitably be frustrated by the congestion

The Panel therefore recommends that the parking provision for visitors is reviewed with a view to providing greater and more convenient parking provision for visitors. The Panel believes that Green Street would be a better option for this purpose.

The Panel notes the suggestion by the Minister that improvements in car-park technology may result in greater flexibility in the use of car parks and believes that this would be a positive way forward.

2. LACK OF PARKING PROVISION FOR POLICE STAFF

Provision for staff parking of vehicles will not be made at the headquarters site. Staff will be expected to park in public car parks and then walk to walk. The notion of providing a staff parking area large enough for circa 60 staff was removed in the 2009 review.

The Transport Assessment report prepared by Arups for the Stage D report on the project estimates that there will be an effective increase in parking demand for public car parking space of around 65 vehicles created by the new police headquarters.

Key Panel concern: The Panel believes that the impact of the additional parking demand created by the new police headquarters may have been downplayed. This will create additional pressure on the Green Street Car Park which is the most convenient parking provision for the new building. Police officer parking will displace commuter parking.

The Panel also believes that there are special considerations for police officers which might make it appropriate to provide some dedicated parking. For example, officers work rotating shifts and may have difficulties finding vacant space close to the building at particular times of the day. The Panel noted that the Police Buildings Design Guide recognised that overlapping shift patterns should be considered.[56]

In addition members believed that officers being recalled at short notice to respond to a Major Incident might find difficulties in parking locally. Also consideration should be given to officers who might encounter safety issues in leaving the building at night to get to their cars if these are parked in public spaces.

What parking provision do officers currently have available at Roussel Street? Has there been any consideration given to replacing this provision?

Ministerial response: There are currently 20 parking spaces available in Roussel Street to those Officers who reside over 2 miles away from the Police HQ. Allocation of these limited spaces is based on a first come first served basis.

The Panel was informed that parking provision for SOJ P staff is not considered necessary or appropriate. The Officers are aware that this is a privilege more than a benefit and staff parking is not part of the requirements of the scheme.

Some SoJP staff might decide to make private parking arrangements at the new building and such options exist close to the site. As part of the welfare and wellbeing of SoJP staff these options will be reviewed as the project moves forward.[57]

What consideration has been given to occasions when large numbers of police officers are required to attend the police station in response to a major incident?

Ministerial response: It is a rare occurrence that a large number of Police Officers attend the Police HQ due to a Major Incident. The initial response will be dealt with by the Officers on duty, or already at the Police HQ.

Following the initial incident the Silver Command Group will assess the situation before requesting further assistance or staff. This will be a more deliberately planned operation and personnel who are required to respond will have time to arrange travel prior to being on duty. This is the principle that SOJP currently operates to and presently has no concerns or reasons for implementing any change.[58]

What consideration has been given to difficulties and safety issues faced by officers coming on or off shift at times when car parks are full or at night time?

Ministerial response: Within the proposed area of La Route Du Fort there are four available Car parks including Green Street, La Route Du Fort, Pier Road and Snow Hill that give the SOJP Officers a variety of options in respect of parking. This proposal outnumbers the restricted options that are currently available to police staff.

Notwithstanding the fact that a workplace travel plan (required as a planning condition) will undoubtedly change travel habits, some SoJP staff are also likely to make their own private parking arrangements, as they do now.

There has never been an incident or data collated that indicates either difficulties or concerns over safety issues faced by officers or staff during shift or evening working patterns.[59]

Panel comment and recommendation

As previously mentioned the Panel has not received any feedback from police officers or civil staff in relation to the issues discussed above.

The Panel notes the brief statement by the States of Jersey Police that the provision of staff parking was not considered necessary or appropriate. Members respectfully disagree with this view and recommend that it would be sensible to acknowledge the need for staff parking in the area by designating a suitable area of Green Street to staff parking with additional provision for visitors.  

This would incur no loss of revenue for Transport and Technical Services as parking would be payable as normal. The loss of commuter spaces is considered to be inevitable but may be compensated by the potential development at Snow Hill.

Plans for Snow Hill

Transport and Technical Services are currently considering additional shopper car parking on the Snow Hill site which may alleviate this problem. The Minister for Transport and Technical Services told the States that he hoped that the new provision would be available before the new police building at Green Street became operational.[60]

The Panel asked Transport and Technical Services for more details of their plans for Snow Hill. The Panel was informed that Planning, the Police, the Parish of St Helier, Education, Sport and Culture, Jersey Property Holdings and the chamber of Commerce, among others, had been invited to a workshop to consider the options for Snow Hill. At present the most promising option identified at the workshop provided for approximately 90 vehicles. There was still feasibility work to do and funding and cost viability remained an issue. A report detailing the scheme and recommending the favoured scheme would be presented to the States early in 2013 in accordance with an amendment to the Sustainable Transport Policy. If there was support for such a project, receipt of planning permission apart, it was felt that an approximately two year time scale for delivery would be appropriate.

Panel comment

Members would welcome the provision of additional parking at Snow Hill to reduce the current parking congestion in the area. The Panel notes however that funding and cost viability remains an issue, therefore this development is far from certain.

APPENDIX 1 – PANEL MEMBERSHIP

The Education and Home Affairs Panel comprised the following members Deputy Jeremy Maçon, Chairman

Connétable Michel Le Troquer

Connétable Steve Pallett

APPENDIX 2 – OVERVIEW OF SITE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

Introduction The following provides an overview of the sites examined as part of the Police relocation project since its inception in 1999.

Brief History In 1999, it was first decided that an alternative site should be found for the Police.  

In 2001, a full feasibility study was completed, which investigated 24 alternative sites and concluded a site on the Esplanade was the most appropriate. This was not accepted politically and in 2003, a further review of available sites undertaken by the Property Services Department identified the Summerland site as the preferred site. In 2005 a feasibility study was completed and in 2006 a formal planning application was made for a new Police HQ on the Summerland site, which did not progress further.

In 2009, under the new leadership of the Police, work was undertaken to critically review all the requirements of the building, in particular space requirements. This lead to the proposals for a split site and formed the basis of the option of acquiring Lime Grove as part of the solution.

In August 2011, the option of acquiring Lime Grove became unavailable and a Project Group was established to find an alternative option. This Group, which included a senior officer from the Environment Department, undertook a review of available sites and identified options for further consideration.

1999 Report into the relocation of the States of Jersey Police

A JR Knowles (construction contract consultants) report concluded that relocation of the Police was required and a Wetherall Green and Smith report assessed alternative sites for the emergency services. These sites included:

• Rouge Bouillon site (Police & File)
• Rouge Bouillon site (Ambulance)
• Summerland Site
• Fields 1218 and 1219, Mont a l'Abbé, St Helier
• Hypothetical site at la Collette
• TA workshop, St Helier

2001 Review of Sites

Colin Smith & Partners reviewed previous reports and assessed 24 alternative sites, including:

1. Rouge Bouillon (Police & Fire)
2. Summerland Site
3. Fields 1218 and 1219
4. Parish Yard, Westmount
5. Savoy/Alton Hotel
6. Curwoods site
7. Norfolk Lodge Hotel
8. Former Jersey College for Girls
9. Steephill
10. Le Coie Hotel
11. Stopford Road Gyratory
12. Supermarket site, gas place

13. Jersey Gas Offices
14. Esplanade car park
15. Island site
16. Island site annexe
17. Waterfront site
18. Abattoir, La Colette
19. Land reclamation site, La Colette 2
20. Colbacks, Queens Rd
21. JEC, Queens Rd
22. Public Services Department site, Mont a l'Abbé
23. Millbrook playing fields
24. Parish yard, Westmount

This report concluded that the Island Site annexe was the most appropriate site. Subsequently discussions with the Waterfront Enterprise Board lead to a site being identified on the Esplanade car-park (South East corner).

2003 Review of Sites

Proposals to locate the Police on the Esplanade car park (south east corner) were included within a feasibility study which was presented to the Finance and Economics Committee and the Policy and Resources Committee. Due to political concerns about the proposed location, A group of Chief Officers, supported by Property Services, was asked to undertake a comparative appraisal of possible alternatives and report back to the Committee.

The above 24 sites previously considered by the feasibility group, together with four additional sites were re-examined. Eight sites were reviewed in more detail as they fitted the basic criteria for the project, these were:

• Parish Yard, Westmount
• Rouge Bouillon/Summerland
• Former Jersey College for Girls
• Warwick Farm, St John's main road
• Parish of St Helier, Mont a l'Abbé
• Former Inn on the Park site, West Park
• Norfolk Lodge Hotel, Rouge Bouillon
• Esplanade Car Park site.

Of these, three were identified for detailed review:

• Parish yard, Westmount
• Rouge Bouillon/Summerland
• Esplanade Public Car Park (north)

These were assessed together with the Esplanade Car Park (South East corner) site as originally proposed.

This report concluded that the Summerland Site as the most suitable and on 20th November 2003, the Policy and Resources Committee endorsed this.

Scheme for the Summerland Site

On the basis of the above recommendation, in April 2005, the Home Affairs Committee considered a feasibility study and approved the recommendation of a new building on the Summerland site. In November 2006 a full planning application was made, though the project was stopped before the application was determined.

The Lime Grove Option

Following a review of the brief in 2009, a number of options were considered, including full build on the Summerland Site and the acquisition of Lime Grove, plus the provision of operational facilities at Rouge Bouillon. In April 2011, it was agreed that the option of acquiring Lime Grove and refurbishing /redeveloping facilities at Rouge Bouillon should be progressed.

Recent Options Considered

In August 2011, the option of acquiring Lime Grove became unavailable. A Project Team was formed to develop a way forward and its first task was to undertake a review of available sites. As part of a workshop on 25th August, the following sites were assessed against key criteria:

The outcome of this work was the following options should be progressed in more detail:

• Full new build on Green St car park
• Provision of office facilities at Maritime House and refurbishment at the Rouge Bouillon site
• Separate custody suite on Lempriere St.
• Separate custody suite on the Rouge Bouillon site.
• Full build on the Summerland Site.

Current Position

The above options were developed into concept schemes by a specialist architect and in September 2011 the Police Relocation Political Steering Group agreed that the option of a full build on Green St car park should be progressed to feasibility stage.

In making this decision, the Steering Group noted that this site would not only meet the needs of the States of Jersey Police, it also will free up the whole of the Summerland Site and part of the Rouge Bouillon site for alternative use.

In December 2011 a feasibility study on the site was completed and in January 2012, the Political Steering Group agreed that the scheme for this site should proceed to Planning Application stage. Public consultation on the proposed scheme was undertaken in February 2012 and the scheme redesigned in advance of making a Planning Application.

[1] £2m of additional funding was agreed in 2011 and was included in capital allocation budget as £1m in 2013 and £1m in 2014. This has made the available budget c£21m.

[2] Letters dated 15 October, 26 October and 6 November 2012,

[3] Concept Options Appraisal Report, dated September 2011, the Stage C Report (Green Street Feasibility Study) Volumes 1 and 2, dated December 2011, and Stage D report, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, (detailed Planning application documents), dated August 2012

[4] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 15 October 2012

[5] Meeting dated 16th October 2012

[6] Police Headquarters Concept Site Option Appraisal, September 2011

[7] It should be noted that the Green Street site had not been considered as an option prior to 2011 as the site had been designated for development as an extension to the car park. As a result of the States adoption of the Sustainable Transport Policy which anticipated a reduction in the demand for commuter parking in the town area, the Island Plan 2011 released the site for alternative development. Consequently, the Green Street site became available as an option for the Police building.

[8] Police Headquarters Concept Site Option Appraisal, September 2011

[9] Ibid

[10] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 15 October 2012

[11] http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20police%20 headquarters%20information%20leaflet%20part%201%20overview%2020120731%20JS.pdf  

[12] Stage D report, Volume 1, dated September 2012

[13] Some of the original budget has been expended due to the costs of various feasibility studies on project options. £2m of additional funding agreed in 2011 and has been added to the capital allocation budget as £1m in 2013 and £1m in 2014. This has made the available budget c£21m

[14] Meeting dated 16th October 2012

[15] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs, dated 26th October 2012

[16] Meeting dated 16 October 2012

[17] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs, dated 26th October 2012

[18] Letter from Minister for Home Affairs dated 26 October 2012

[19] Ibid

[20] http://www.bco.org.uk/news/detail.cfm?rid=118

[21] Police Buildings Design Guide, section 6 Design Excellence, September 2007,

[22] Ibid

[23] Ibid

[24] Ibid section 12

[25] Police Buildings design Guide Section 6, page 23

[26] Meeting dated 16th October 2012

[27] Meeting dated 16th October 2012

[28] Letter from Minister for Home Affairs dated 6 November 2012

[29] Email from Associate Director, dated 09.11.12

[30] British Council for Offices latest research: http://www.bco.org.uk/news/detail.cfm?rid=118

[31] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 15 October 2012

[32] Letter from Minister of Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel dated 15 October 2012

[33] British Council for Offices latest research: http://www.bco.org.uk/news/detail.cfm?rid=118

[34] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 26 October 2012

[35] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 26 October 2012

[36] On 18th October 2012 the States of Jersey Police announced a decrease in crime figures of 9%. http://www.jersey.police.uk/news/Pages/NewsDetail.aspx?NewsItemId=709.

The UK Office for National Statistics also reported that crime had fallen by 6% in the past year and that levels had dropped by a third in a decade. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9617967/Recorded-crime-now-at-lowest-level-since- 1986.html

[37] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 15 October 2012.

[38] Crime in England and Wales is recorded against financial years (eg; April 2010 – March 2011). For ease of comparison, the figures have been shown in calendar year format (eg 2010/11 is shown as

2011). England and Wales figures range is from 0 to 7,000,000.

[39] Whilst some discrepancies occur because of different legislation designating different offence types States of Jersey Police seeks to conform to the National Crime Recording Standard so the figures are

broadly comparable

[40] Letter of Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 26 October 2012

[41] Concept Site Option Appraisal, dated September 2011

[42] The retired Projects and Facilities Manager was unable to identify when this reduction in the number of cells had been made due to the fact that he was working from memory and unable to access files

[43] Letter from Minister of Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 26 October 2012

[44] Meeting dated 26 October 2012

[45] Letter from Minister for Home Affairs to Scrutiny Panel, dated 6 November 2012

[46] Written answer (1240/5(71991)to Deputy Martin dated 6th November 2012 48 Meeting dated 16 October 2012

[47] Letter from Minister for Home Affairs dated 15 October 2012

[48] Letter from Minister of Home Affairs dated 26 October 2012

[49] The Panel notes that this appears to go against the Home Office recommendation that any visitor parking should be located at least 10 metres away from the building to prevent potential terrorism and

[50] Meeting dated 16 October 2012

[51] Ibid

[52] Meeting dated 16 October 2012

[53] Letter from Minister dated 26 October 2012

[54] Meeting dated 26 October 2012

[55] Letter from Minister dated 26 October 2012

[56] Police Buildings Design Guide Section 7 External Design

[57] Ibid

[58] Letter from Minister of Home Affairs dated 26 October 2012

[59] Ibid

[60] Hansard 23.101.12