Bridging Island Plan 2022-24: An Analysis of the Revised Island Plan Review Process (S.R.3/2021) – Response of the Minister for the Environment

Findings

Comments

1

The  high-level  strategic  aim  of  the bridging  Island  Plan  is  to  allow significant  progress  to  be  made  to address  key  community  planning challenges  where  there  is  relative certainty  and  for  targeted  short-term policy to be developed and applied in areas where there is less certainty for the medium to long-term future.

Noted and accepted.

2

There is a possible disconnect between the high-level strategic aims of a bridging Island Plan and how precisely this will be delivered by a shorter plan.

While this might appear possible in theory, in practice the long-term strategic objectives of the Island  Plan  must  remain  consistent  with  the requirements of the Planning and Building Law (2002) to provide for the sustainable development of the Island. This requires that approaches to key strategic  issues  such  as  climate  change, biodiversity loss, increasing social inequality and a changing economy, need to be addressed by the policy framework of a new Island Plan, even if the duration of the Plan is for a fixed, shorter period.

Findings

Comments

The  sustainability  appraisal  of  the  Plan  will provide an independent assessment of the extent to which the policies of the bridging plan deliver sustainable development.

3

The vision for a bridging Island Plan is informed  by  a  range  of  sources including:  the  Common  Strategic Policy and other key strategic plans; the findings of key public and stakeholder consultations including Future Jersey; and the emergent work of the Island Identity Policy Development Board.

Noted and accepted.

4

The bridging Plan will set out a number of  policy  development  proposals, resourced through the Government Plan process and written into departmental business  plans,  to  create  the  best foundations for the next long-term 10- year plan.

Noted  and  accepted.  The  integration  of  the outcomes of the new Island Plan into government planning and resourcing processes  should help ensure that better and more effective progress is made in relation to the delivery of key government objectives.

5

The Council of Ministers requested and approved  that  a  condensed  bridging Island Plan should be progressed and developed in the current parliamentary term.  However,  it  is  unclear  what degree of analysis of all the options was undertaken in order to determine that this  was  the  most  suitable  option presented to them.

A series of options were developed in the period following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic. Each option was presented to ministers with a summary  of  positive  attributes  and  associated challenges.

Initially,  options  were  presented  that  accorded with  the  legally  prescribed  process  for  the preparation and adoption of a new Island Plan, as set out in the Planning and Building Law (2002) as  drafted.  Subsequently,  options  were considered, under a revised Island Plan Review process, that would require an amendment to this Law in order to accommodate a Plan.

A summary of these discussions and associated options in set out at Appendix 1 to this response.

6

A recurring theme in submissions was that the current Island Plan should be extended  until  a  10-year  plan  was feasible.  However,  reissuing  of  the

Noted and accepted.

Findings

Comments

current Island Plan until this time was not considered a workable option by the Council of Ministers given that it was considered  that  there  were  too many issues  and  areas  which  required reviewing in the current plan.

7

The Minister for the Environment had originally intended that the best way forward was to finish the Island Plan in 2022  after  the  election,  however subsequently  chose  to implement the advice  of  the  Department's  Strategic Partner  Arup'  whose  analysis  had determined that a 3-year bridging plan was a workable solution. Although it is unclear as to whether it represented the most suitable solution.

This finding suggests the proposal for a Bridging Plan originated as advice from ARUP.

The option to develop a bridging Island Plan was developed by officers in response to a request from COM to consider how an Island Plan might be  brought  forward  before  the  election.  The Minister for the Environment asked that advice be sought from ARUP on the viability of this model (which concluded it was a workable solution).

8

No  stakeholder  consultation  was carried  out  during  the  process undertaken to the evaluate options of how to proceed with the Island Plan Review  process  and,  ultimately,  the decision  to  proceed  with  a  bridging Island  Plan.  Following  the  decision, briefing sessions were held online to communicate this to stakeholders.

This is accepted. It is notable however that:

- the decision was taken between April and early June 2020, at a point when both the Island  Plan  team  and  key  stakeholders across the Island were heavily diverted by the response to the coronavirus pandemic, and  the  effect  of  the  change  upon stakeholders  is  considered  negligible relative to the original programme such that a review of the current plan is still delivered, and the process for stakeholder engagement  with  the  plan  process remains unchanged. The essential change for the users of the plan is the shortening of the plan period.

- the  effect  of  the  bridging  island  plan approach that was chosen is primarily to remove certain policy issues from scope by virtue of the length of the Plan. The policy matters that remain in scope have not  been  materially  altered  by  the decision to reduce the length of the Plan.

9

In order for a short-term bridging Island Plan to be considered and approved by

Noted and accepted.

Findings

Comments

the States  Assembly before the 2022 election, changes to the Planning and Building  (Jersey)  Law  2002  are required. These changes are proposed under  the  Draft  COVID-19  (Island Plan)  Regulations  202-  [P.168/2020] and are due for the States to debate on 9th February 2021. If approved by the States Assembly, this will enable the Minister  for  the  Environment  to temporarily  change  the  process  by which  the  draft  Island  Plan  would ordinarily be lodged and debated.

10

The draft Regulations [P.168/2020], if approved,  would  change  the consultation and lodging process from that  of  a  linear  process,  to  a  twin- tracked  process,  whereby  the  public consultation would run at the same time as lodging the draft Island Plan.

Noted and accepted.

11

The draft Regulations [P.168/2020], if approved, will not change the process by which members of the public can comment in the public consultation and for their representation to be heard by the planning inspector.

Noted and accepted.

12

It is acknowledged in R.66/2020 that changes  to  the  overall  process  will result in more amendments, potentially leading to a complex debate which will need  to  be  well-structured  and appropriately managed.

Noted and accepted.

Consideration  of  an  Island  Plan  which  is,  by necessity,  a  complex  and  multi-faceted  policy document,  a  process  which  places  unusual demands on the States Greffe and the Assembly. To ensure that this can be managed as efficiently and effectively as possible, the Greffier of the States has been closely involved in the revisions to the Island Plan Review process.

In addition, the Minister for the Environment will continue  to  engage  with  States  Members throughout  the  Island  Plan  Review  process  in order  to  deal  with  issues,  where  possible,

Findings

Comments

beforehand; to minimise, as far as possible, the complexity of the States debate.

13

Should  the  draft  Regulations [P.168/2020] be adopted as amended, it will  enable States  Members  to  bring forward amendments related to issues raised  in  the  planning  inspector's report. However, there would only be scope  for  the  Minister  for  the Environment  to  lodge  amendments during  the  States  debate  itself if  the States agree.

Noted and accepted.

14

The  draft  Regulations,  if  adopted, would  outline  a  requirement  for  the development  of  a  longer-term  Island Plan  to  be  prepared  and  brought forward within a reasonable timeframe of the bridging Island Plan coming to an end. The existing plan would remain in effect until a new plan is approved.

Noted and accepted.

15

Should  the  draft  Regulations [P.168.2020] be approved by the States, new  Order-making  powers  would  be extended to enable a new Order to be drafted  which  would  enable  detailed provision for the procedures by which representations made by the public and States' Members proposed amendments would  be  heard  by  the  planning inspector.

Noted and accepted.

16

Fears  were  raised  in  stakeholder submissions as to the uncertainty of a shorter Island Plan and that the process might be used as a means to exploit land use and create detrimental development opportunities.  The  Minister  for  the Environment dismissed these concerns, although further explanation on how a shorter  bridging  Island  Plan  would

It is recognised that some stakeholders have raised these concerns, although their basis is unclear.

The Preferred Strategy is explicit, in Section 3, that the new Island Plan:

• will look forward to the strategic long- term requirements of the Island and set a vision of a sustainable future

• will be prepared to exacting standards, and

Findings

Comments

ensure  sustainable  outcomes  was  not provided.

 is  an  Island  Plan  in  the  full  sense  – prepared in accordance with the law and best professional practice.

17

There is a perceived risk amongst some States Members and stakeholders that unless  there  is  a  meaningful  public consultation  and  adequate  time  to consider  the  views  of  those  who contribute  to  the  consultation,  this could lead to a disenfranchisement of the key individuals and organisations who are considered vital to delivering the outcomes of any approved bridging Island  Plan  and  thereby  significantly inhibit the success of the plan.

The perception of this risk is recognised and fully accepted, but the Minister for the Environment is committed to ensure that the Island Plan Review process  is  open, transparent,  and  engaging  for those who have an interest in it.

In  this  respect,  it  is  relevant  to  note  that  the preparation of the draft plan has  already been informed by the output of the Strategic Issues and Options  consultation;  and  the  preparation  of technical  evidence  base,  both  of  which stakeholders have been able to engage with and contribute to.

The IPR in-committee debate, together with the ongoing  informal  dialogue  through  rounds  of parish-briefings',  have  also  afforded  States Members opportunity to engage with the process.

Formal engagement with the Island Plan Review programme  is  provided  by  a  full  12-week statutory  public  consultation,  together  with  a detailed Examination in Public conducted by a team  of  independent  professional  planning inspectors.

18

The prioritisation process for assessing what should be included or excluded from a shorter 3-year bridging Island Plan was based on  need, particularly any  identified  development  pressures facing  the  Island.  The  prioritisation process also involved looking at what assessments,  studies  or  policies  are currently  available  to  utilise  as  an evidence base which will help inform a new bridging plan.

The new Island Plan will be comprehensive in its scope  and  will  provide  a  new  comprehensive planning policy framework for the island.

The preparation of the Island Plan involves the development of an appropriate evidence base to address  key  issues,  challenges,  and  policy responses. The scope of the evidence base for the bridging Island Plan was determined to be those issues:

-  that would substantially develop over the Plan  period  and  hence  required  an updated policy response, and

that might develop beyond the Plan period but that would not be substantially impacted by matters

Findings

Comments

that could not be properly assessed because of uncertainty brought about by Covid-19.

19

The Objective Assessment of Housing Need  Report  forms  part  of  the  core evidence  base  on  which  Jersey's housing  requirement  has  been prioritised and is therefore included in the proposed bridging Island Plan.

Noted. The OAHN forms part of the evidence base for the bridging Island Plan, though does not itself form part of that Plan.

20

Affordable Housing Providers are not able  to  meet  the  current  demand  for housing and face obstacles in being able to  secure  properties  or  land  for development.

The need for the Island Plan to be reviewed, to address issues related to the need for affordable homes, is noted and accepted.

21

The current Island Plan is outdated and the  extent  of  housing  provision  has become  more  limited  which  poses  a challenge to responding to the current housing shortage and consequently has been  another  factor  in  prioritising housing  as  a  key  component  of  the proposed bridging Island Plan.

Noted and accepted.

22

The public estate has the potential to provide  suitable  sites  for  the development  of  affordable  housing, however there is a lack of coordination and long delays in being able to make decisions  on  the  use  of  these  sites, driven in part by delays in the office accommodation  project  and  the  site decision for the future hospital.

It  is  recognised  that  the  public  estate  has  the potential  to  provide  suitable  sites  for  the development  of  a  range  of  housing  types  and tenures.

An  Island  Public  Estate  Strategy  has  been prepared that provides the strategic framing and governance processes to properly coordinate the use of public land and buildings to support the development of housing.

23

A  bridging  Island  Plan,  if  approved, will play a vital role in the planning application process for a new hospital. However,  should  the  Plan  not  be approved,  a  contingency  option  to enable  the  hospital's  planning application  to  be  considered  via

Any planning application will be considered and determined having regard to the Island Plan that is extant at that time.

The Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to Our Hospital was published in early 2020 and is material to any consideration of an application

Findings

Comments

Supplementary Planning Guidance has been provided for and so that no undue further delay is caused to the delivery of a new hospital.

under  the  current  Island  Plan;  however,  that consideration  is  not  as  a  stand-alone  planning framework but in addition to Island Plan policies.

24

Uncertainties created by Brexit and the continuing  global  pandemic  make  it difficult  to  model  potential  future population and demand figures for in- ward migration.

Noted and accepted.

25

Whilst it is  proposed that the 3-year bridging  Island  Plan  will  be decoupled'  from  a  migration  and population policy, the plan will still be based on the best available data and will have regard to any emergent migration policy.

Noted and accepted.

26

Issues  surrounding  land  use  are expected to be addressed in the next bridging  Island  Plan,  although  it  is unclear at this stage precisely how they will be prioritised and addressed in the plan. Although it is acknowledged that this  will  likely  be  deliberated  and decided  upon  as  part  of  the  public consultation provided for in the Island Plan Review process.

The Island Plan is defined in law as a Plan for the comprehensive and sustainable development of land.

The process and methodology for making land use choices in the Plan will be set out in the published evidence base and is informed both by strategic consideration and detailed site assessments.

27

A  broad  planning  assumption  of average  annual  population  growth  of +1,000 has been used to inform relevant infrastructure studies.

Noted and accepted.

28

A bridging Island Plan will take into consideration  infrastructure requirements over a 15-year period but will focus on prioritising schemes that are most likely to come forward for a planning  decision  with  the  3-year lifespan of the bridging Island Plan.

The  Island  Plan  seeks  to  provide  a  policy framework  to  enable  consideration  of infrastructure requirements in the short-term and it may make provision for the development of infrastructure  over  the  longer-term  where  the available evidence justifies this.

Findings

Comments

29

A bridging Island Plan will recognise that the States Assembly has declared a climate  emergency.  The  plan  will facilitate new programmes and policies in line with the intended aims of the Carbon  Neutral  Strategy  and Sustainable  Transport  Plan  as  both these  workstreams  continue  to  be developed and so as to ensure long-term environmental sustainability.

Noted  and  accepted.  The  Island  Plan  will,  as matter of course, have regard to the challenges of climate change and will seek to ensure that the impact  of  new  development  minimises greenhouse gas emissions whilst seeking to ensure that the island is more resilient to the effects of climate change.

Given that the development of the Carbon Neutral Strategy has been delayed as a result of Covid-19, it may be necessary to supplement the draft Island Plan,  after  publication,  with  relevant  matters informed by the planned Citizens' Assembly, and the subsequent Carbon Neutral Roadmap.

30

The urban development of St. Helier will be a key focus  for the bridging Island Plan, as will other urban parts of the island. An urban character study is being undertaken to inform this element of the bridging plan.

Noted and accepted.

31

The Shoreline Management Plan will seek  to  identify,  as  a  starting  point, where sea defences need improving or extending, and this assessment will be realised  within  the  lifespan  of  the bridging plan. This will be used as a foundation  for  any  longer-term investment which may be required in the next 10-year Island Plan.

Noted. Work on the Shoreline Management Plan concluded in 2019 and is already in place. The new  Island  Plan  will  seek  to  provide  a  new planning framework which enables the delivery of the Shoreline Management Plan policy objectives.

32

The bridging Island Plan will adopt a new  Integrated  Landscape  and Seascape  Character  Assessment (ILSCA) to establish a new long-term policy regime which will seek to protect the  island's  most  sensitive  coast  and countryside,  as  well  as  sympathetic development of greenfield land where appropriate.  The  plan  will  also incorporate  the  St  Brelade  Character Study  and  its  focus  on  considering options to conserve the bay's character.

The  ILSCA  and  St  Brelade's  Bay  Character Assessment  are  both  studies  of  landscape character commissioned to inform the Island Plan. They will not be directly incorporated into the Plan itself but will inform the policies of the Plan.

Findings

Comments

33

There are numerous policy areas and identified  development  needs  which will seek to be incorporated into the 3- year bridging plan. However, with so many competing priorities, it is unclear what will need to be scaled back or excluded from the plan in order to have realistic  and  achievable  outcomes within the lifespan of the plan.

It is acknowledged and accepted that, given the time taken to effect the delivery of development on  the  ground'  –  from  securing  planning permission to being built – the outcomes of all of the new plan's policy objectives are unlikely to be realised within a shorter plan period. The new plan will,  however,  set  a  new  planning  policy framework against which decisions can be made to effect progress on a range of pressing issues, such as the meeting the need for affordable homes.

The  scope  of  the  bridging  Island  Plan  was determined to be those issues:

-  that would substantially develop over the Plan  period  and  hence  required  an updated policy response, and

that might develop beyond the Plan period but that would not be substantially impacted by matters that could not be properly assessed because of uncertainty brought about by Covid-19.

34

Concerns  were  expressed  by stakeholders, and shared by the Panel, that a bridging Island Plan might be over ambitious in what can realistically be achieved in the limited timescale, as well as how the bridging plan will join up with the next 10-year plan to provide certainty and longevity to those in the building and construction industry.

Proposals made in the bridging Island Plan will be accommodated in subsequent Government Plans and Departmental Operational Business Plans to ensure they are properly resourced and progressed over the Island Plan period.

Development during the period of the bridging Island Plan will be facilitated by the planning regime it establishes but is not achieved' by the Plan as such.

Given the proximity between a Plan adopted in 2022 and one expected to be adopted in 2025, it is likely  that  there  will  be  a  high  degree  of consistency in key policy matters and the core evidence that informs them. However, any future Island Plan will be fully  reviewed on its own merits and in response to the community's needs at that time.

35

There are some fears that a shorter-term plan  could  create  further  uncertainty about the long-term focus for the Island. The  Minister  for  the  Environment

Noted and accepted.

Findings

Comments

believes these fears are unwarranted as the bridging plan will aim to have a long-term  focus  but  with  targets  and numbers based on a shorter period.

36

The Minister for the Environment has given his assurances that the risk of key Island Plan policy staff being diverted to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic is very low and that staff will continue to be  available  to  lead  on  Island  Plan review process and see it through to its completion.

Noted and accepted.

37

The costs allocated to fund the initially anticipated 10-year plan are anticipated to be required in full for the shortened 3-year  bridging  plan.  Whilst  the Minister anticipates that some of this work will not need to be repeated in the subsequent  10-year  plan  (therefore incurring further cost) it is uncertain at this stage what the updated cost of a subsequent 10-year plan will be.

Noted and accepted.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

1

The Minister for the Environment should publish, prior to the lodging of the bridging Island Plan, the options that were deliberated by the Council of Ministers with a clear rationale provided as to why the bridging Island Plan was deemed the favoured option and why

ME NV

Accept

A series of options were developed in the period  following  the  onset  of  the coronavirus pandemic. Each option was presented to ministers with a summary of positive  attributes  and  associated challenges.

Initially,  options  were  presented  that accorded with the Planning and Building Law  (2002)  as  drafted.  Subsequently, options  were  considered  that  would

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

alternative options were considered unworkable and consequently rejected.

require an amendment to this  Law in order to accommodate a Plan.

A  summary  of  these  discussion  and associated options in set out at Appendix 1 to this response.

2

The Minister for the Environment should ensure that detail of how a shorter bridging Island Plan will ensure sustainability in regard to land use and development is a key component of the bridging Island Plan when it is lodged in the States, so as to reassure States Members and the public about how this will be realised. For added clarity, the bridging Plan should seek to address the definition of sustainability under the

plan.

ME NV

Accept

This will be addressed throughout the Plan,  and  particularly  in  key  strategic policies.

The definition of sustainability, and the application  of  that  definition  to  the policies  and  sites  identified  in  the bridging Island Plan, will be set out in an independent  Sustainability  Appraisal that will be published at the same time as the draft Island Plan.

3

The Minister for the Environment and the Department for Strategic, Policy, Planning and Performance should ensure that the public consultation period is as thorough and wide- ranging as possible. With proactive steps taken to invite key stakeholders and the general public to submit their views through a variety of

ME NV

Accept

These  recommendations  reflect  the intentions of the Minister and are being actively planned for.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

forums that COVID-19 restrictions permit. Furthermore, that requests for views are actively targeted where appropriate and widely advertised, in order to stimulate as large a response as possible.

4

The Minister for the Environment and the Department for Strategic Policy, Planning and Performance should proactively seek the views of Affordable Housing Providers during the public consultation on the bridging Island Plan, to ensure that the issues they face in being able to secure land for development, and thus expand provision for affordable housing, are adequately addressed by the policies contained within a bridging Island Plan.

ME NV

Accept

These  recommendations  reflect  the intentions of the Minister and are being actively planned for.

5

The Council of Ministers should prioritise the identification and provision of affordable housing sites within the public estate and appropriate sites should be released for development within the lifespan of the bridging Island Plan.

ME NV /Co M

Accept

The  Minister  strongly  agrees  and supports work to achieve this outcome, which  is  led  by  the  Infrastructure Minister.

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

6

The Estates Strategy should feed into and inform the bridging Island Plan and, therefore, the Council of Ministers should seek to finalise and publish its long-awaited Estates Strategy prior to the adoption of a bridging Island Plan.

ME NV

Accept

At time of writing, the Estates Strategy is due to be published and will be shared with the Panel.

7

The Minister for the Environment should ensure that, prior to the public consultation, a further communication drive takes place to get the right messaging across as to what it means to decouple' the migration policy from a 3-year plan and how a shorter plan will still be as robustly informed as possible by various planning assumptions.

ME NV

Accept

The  Preferred  Strategy  report  makes clear that

- potential  future  population levels are of central importance to the Island Plan Review

- while the shorter scale bridging Island  Plan  is  intended  to mitigate  the  risks  of  making long-term  plans  in  a  volatile context, it will still be based on the best available data, and the planning  assumption  will  still directly  inform  policy development and site selection

- however,  the  bridging  Island Plan can be de-coupled from the sequential  development  of  a population policy by the current Council of Ministers.

Communications work will continue to ensure  that  these  messages  can  be properly  understood  throughout  the consultation.

8

The Minister for the Environment should provide a clear SMART'[1] analysis of

ME NV

Accept

The draft Island Plan will contain:

-  a section that explains how it is anticipated  to  interlink  with  a

Recommendations

To

Accept/ Reject

Comments

Target date of action/ completion

how each key component of a shorter plan will be deliverable in the shorter timescale, so as to help to instil confidence in the States Assembly and the public that a shorter plan will be able to deliver its intended outcomes. This should also encompass how the bridging plan will interlink with the next full 10-year plan to ensure longevity and certainty for building developments through the lifespan of a project. This should be provided when the bridging plan is lodged to enable this analysis to be considered during the 12-week consultation period.

future  long-term  plan (recognising  that  any  future Island Plan will be developed by a future Environment Minister and debated by a future States Assembly), and

a  section  that  establishes  the performance and delivery framework for the Island Plan, including the indicators and  metrics  used  to  assess  the effectiveness of the Plan as part of the wider Jersey Performance Framework.

9

A communications strategy should be put in place to advise and assure islanders about how a bridging plan will still ensure a long-term focus. This should take place before and during the public consultation, to ensure that the public are fully informed and given greater assurance about how a shorter plan will still have a long- term strategic focus.

ME NV

Accept

These messages will be reflected in the communications campaign that supports the  public  consultation.  It  is  noted though that such a campaign can only start with the lodging and publication of the draft Island Plan.