Consultation response | Analysis and comment | Action |
Procedure |
The draft SPG should have been subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA). | Not accepted: There is no legal or policy requirement in Jersey for an SEA to be undertaken in respect of a planning framework document. In England, where the requirement for an SEA is determined by statute, it is only in exceptional circumstances that supplementary planning documents require a strategic environmental assessment where they are likely to have significant environmental effects that have not already have been assessed during the preparation of the relevant strategic policies. It is relevant to note that, in this respect, earlier planning applications related to the Esplanade Quarter have already been the subject of environmental impact assessments and that, where appropriate and as defined by existing planning law in Jersey[1], subsequent site-specific development proposals which emerge within the SWStHPF area will be the subject of future EIAs.. Likewise, in England, a strategic environmental assessment is unlikely to be required where a supplementary planning document deals only with a small area at a local level. Furthermore, strategic environmental assessment only considers the environmental effects of a plan. It is relevant to note that the Island Plan Review, which is currently being undertaken and which will have regard to the SWStHPF, is the subject of a wider sustainability appraisal. Sustainability appraisal considers the plan’s wider economic and social effects in addition to its potential environmental impacts. On the basis of the above, an SEA is not considered to be either appropriate or necessary. | None |
The SPG has not been the subject of a comprehensive or rigorous engagement strategy. | Not accepted: The review and development of the SWStHPF has been the subject of a significant and comprehensive engagement programme over the last two - three years, involving a series of open public workshops (charrettes) run by the Design Council (part of the Commission for Architecture and Built Environment) on behalf of the GoJ. The professionals involved in the conception, design and facilitation of this engagement strategy and the individual workshops are design professionals with considerable and specific expertise in community engagement on planning matters. The draft framework has also been the subject of a nine-week period of consultation using conventional media as well as social media platforms. During this period, a further public engagement event was held, which again, was independently facilitated by the Design Council. This was supplemented by a specific event for young people held at the Move-On Café, Liberty Wharf. The engagement strategy, and its implementation, is considered to have been appropriate and proportionate for the purposes of seeking meaningful feedback from the community and interested stakeholders and has engaged a range of interests including young people, local residents, business, architects, planners, civic organisations, sectoral interest groups, developers and landowners. The Planning Framework, when adopted will also require developers to engage with the community prior to the submission of any planning application in the area. | None |
General |
The framework does not go far enough in ensuring cohesive delivery or adequately addressing the future needs of the island. | Noted: Key drivers for the review of the existing planning guidance included the need to define an effective and viable delivery mechanism for development and planning gain on the St Helier Waterfront, and the desire to develop a planning framework that was sufficiently flexible to respond to the island’s needs. Unlike the 2008 Esplanade Quarter Masterplan, therefore, the SWStH Planning Framework does not specify a formal and binding delivery mechanism but rather makes it clear that conditional planning permission and planning obligation agreements will provide the appropriate mechanisms to secure delivery of development and planning gain. Similarly, it is not intended to be a prescriptive ‘masterplan’ and one of the advantages of the framework is its ability to provide flexibility over the longer term. | None |
The SoJDC should be prevented from progressing with any more developments in the area until an overall plan has been approved. | Noted: The progression of development in the area remains to be considered against the planning policy framework that is in effect at the time, whether it is sponsored by SoJDC or any other developer. The Minister for the Environment has no role, or ability to influence, the progression of SoJDC-sponsored projects. | None |
History and heritage assets in the framework area should be considered fully during decision making. | Noted: The framework includes measures to secure enhanced public accessibility to heritage assets and to protect or enhance views towards them. The General Principles and several of the Key Opportunity Sites specifically refer to the need to preserve and enhance heritage assets and to have full regard of the historical context of the area. Moreover, the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002, together with the policies of the Island Plan, provides a robust decision-making framework that requires careful consideration of the impact of development proposals upon heritage assets and their settings. | None |
Car parking in the area should be reduced significantly. | Noted: Car parking to serve the needs of individual developments will be assessed on a site-by-site basis having regard to planning policy and any associated planning guidance. The framework does include a requirement to provide 520 car parking spaces within KOS1, 2 and, potentially, KOS3. This requirement will be reviewed in line with any forthcoming sustainable transport strategy and/or parking strategy. | None |
A co-ordinated strategy for the provision and design of new street furniture etc should be developed for the area. | Partly accepted: The framework is not intended to impose prescriptive or overly-detailed guidance for the development of the area. However, the benefits of a co-ordinated approach to new street furniture is appreciated. This could be the subject of a future SPG (resources permitting). | Amend text to refer to the possibility of a future SPG on new street furniture. |
Delivery of the Framework’s aims will be too expensive. | Not accepted: A key driver for the review of the existing planning guidance was that, being predicated on the sinking of the La Route de la Liberation, it was not financially viable and capable of delivery. The framework sets out some key aims and identifies clear mechanisms to achieve the delivery of these aims through the creation of value through the provision of development. These aims have not been challenged, either generally or specifically, by landowners or developers on the grounds of viability. Translation and delivery of these aims will be the subject of site-specific consideration through the planning process. | None |
The term ‘St Helierness’ should be replaced as it is not something that can be defined. | Accepted: The term was coined in an attempt to identify St Helier’s unique character and the objective of the term ‘St Helierness’ was to ensure that new development embody and reflect, through all aspects of their design, a sense of place; local relevance and identity. It is, however, accepted that this character is not consistent throughout town. Work to review the St Helier Urban Character Appraisal (2005) as part of the Island Plan Review will assist in the assessment of sense of place and local relevance: this is reflected in supplementary planning guidance[2] . | Amend text to remove the term ‘St Helierness’ and replace with references to sense of place and local relevance. |
The term ‘vibrant’ should be replaced by plain English words. | Not accepted: The term describes a notion of being full of energy and life and is generally understood on this basis: it is not a technical term. This is considered to be appropriate to the framework’s aspirations. | None |
Vision |
General agreement with the ‘vision’, but mechanisms need to be in place to ensure that the aims of the framework are delivered. | Noted: A section on ‘delivery’ is included in the framework. The determination of planning applications for new developments in the framework area will be subject to the provisions of that section to ensure successful delivery. | None |
The premise of a disconnect between the Waterfront and town is not correct. There is no disconnect. | Not accepted: La Route de la Liberation presents a significant barrier to the ease of pedestrian movement between the Waterfront and town. This fact has been raised as a major concern at all of the community workshops held into the development of the framework. | None |
General Principles |
GP1: Connectivity and Movement |
General agreement with GP1, but the area needs to have ‘something to visit’ and be less vehicle-centric. | Noted: This accords with the framework’s objectives. | None |
The needs of other forms of transport should be considered – eg: electric tram, mobility scooters, skateboards, roller skates and electric scooters. | Partly accepted: The framework seeks to encourage those forms of movement which are most environmentally sustainable but which also enable the physical sharing of space, whilst allowing ease of movement. Whilst other forms of individual transport – such as scooters and skateboards – might deliver similar objectives, other forms of public transport, such as trams, are likely to be more physically impactful and may serve to challenge the delivery of aims. | Amend text of GP1 |
Cycle and pedestrian pathways should be segregated in the interests of safety. | Noted: The professional advice of the Transportation section of the Department of Growth, Housing and Environment will be sought for any planning applications for new cycle / pedestrian routes. | None |
Any bridge / raised walkway should be designed to take into account the effects of wind on its structure and users. | Noted: Any new structure would be subject to the rigorous compliance with current Building Bye-Laws and industry best-practice. However, it is accepted that specific reference to the need to consider the imp act of high winds on any bridge could be highlighted. | Amend text to GP1 |
Access to and from the port for freight and passengers should not be impeded. | Noted: Whilst the framework encourages the prioritisation of safe pedestrian and cycle routes through the area, it is also acknowledged that full access to and from the port and related facilities must be maintained. | None |
GP2: Open Space |
Trenton Square should be added to the list of successful open spaces | Noted: Trenton Square is a relatively new public space the surrounding context of which has yet to be fully developed out (IFC6, to the west, is currently under construction). Whilst of inherent value, the success of the space can only be properly considered when the area around the entire space is developed. | None, at this time |
Open spaces should be welcoming to all groups and planned first – not given over to commercial outlets. | Noted: The framework encourages the approach of planning open space and lines of connectivity before identifying potential building plots. | None |
All developments should be required to provide an amount of good quality public realm. Landscape should be required in place of Percent for Art contributions. | Noted: Good quality public realm and public art are not mutually exclusive. Policy GD8 of the 2011 Island Plan (revised 2014) encourages the contribution of a percentage of design and development costs to the provision of public art. The provision of landscaping should be an integral part of development proposals. The Island Plan is currently under review and Policy GD8 will be considered as part of that review. | None |
Open spaces should incorporate suitable tree planting. | Noted: This accords with the framework’s objectives. | |
GP3: Uses |
General agreement with GP3. The area should accommodate a mix of uses where ‘something is happening day and night’ and where it feels safe. | Noted: The framework encourages a vibrant and sustainable mix of uses, including residential and cultural / leisure facilities. | None |
The area should not be over-commercialised | Noted: As above. | None |
A new youth club could be provided within the area. | Accepted: One of the five GoJ Common Strategic Policies is to “put children first”. Jersey Youth Service’s ‘Move On Youth Project’ and a local Girl Guide group were engaged in the consultation project. Their enthusiasm and interest in the draft Southwest St Helier Planning Framework is to be commended and the need for a new centre for young people in the area was highlighted. | Amend text to GP3 |
GP4: Design |
Excellent quality architecture is needed in the area. Mistakes previously made in allowing poor design quality should not be replicated. | Noted: The framework encourages excellent quality architecture. | None |
Developers should incorporate eco-friendly designs and materials in new buildings. | Accepted: In line with the States of Jersey’s declaration of a climate emergency the use of sustainable technologies and eco-friendly materials in new developments should be encouraged. | Amend text to GP4 |
Cues should not be taken from St Helier’s network of streets and spaces. Design should respond to Jersey as an evolving island – looking to the future and not the past. | Partly accepted: The framework states that “…Cues should be taken from St Helier’s fine network of streets and spaces, traditional and successful modern architecture, building heights and the relationship between buildings, spaces and movement corridors. …” . It is also acknowledged that lessons can be learned from successful waterfront developments around the world. However, it is important to ensure that new development is locally relevant and contributes to a sense of place that is identifiable and relevant to the island and to St Helier. | Amend text to GP4 |
The focus should be on public and shared spaces and not on roads and cars. | Noted: The framework encourages such an approach. | None |
GP5: Building Height |
Taller buildings will be necessary given the island’s finite land supply and increasing population. Their design should be excellent, with public access to upper floors and respect for the space about buildings. | Noted: The framework enables the provision of taller buildings where they are of an excellent quality in terms of architecture and their relationship with the character and heritage of St Helier. | None |
- Building heights should be restricted to three or four storeys, with an occasional taller one.
- Building heights should be no more than seven storeys.
- Buildings should ‘start off small’ then build up towards the centre of town.
| Noted: In the framework area the appropriate height of any tall building will be determined by the capacity of the site and its surroundings to accommodate that height in an elegant form, and by the likely impact upon the setting of heritage assets and the wider area in general. The framework requires proposals for major new development to be accompanied by a height analysis, explaining the rationale behind the proposed heights of new buildings in the context of the wider area, relation to street width and impact on views. | None |
GP6: Views |
General agreement with GP6. | Noted. | None |
Views should be considered holistically across the area and not just on a site-by-site basis. | Accepted: The framework will require the submission of a ‘view analysis’ on a site-by-site basis. However, it is appreciated that planning applications for individual developments should take into account any other consented or proposed developments in respect of preparing a view analysis. | Amend text of GP6. |
Key Opportunity Sites |
KO1: Esplanade Quarter (East) |
Concern over building height and use. The demand for new offices is not proven. | Noted: Building heights over seven storeys will require exceptional justification. The framework encourages a mix of uses including offices, residential, visitor accommodation and / or cultural facilities. | None |
A roof-top café could be incorporated into the design of one of the buildings. | Noted: The framework would allow for this, with any tall building being required to be of mixed use with public access to the upper floor(s). | None |
The provision of additional pedestrian crossing points could cause more traffic congestion. | Noted: One of the key aims of the planning framework is to facilitate a network of routes to, from and within the area that allow safe and attractive passage for all users. It is accepted that the provision of additional pedestrian crossing points along La Route de la Liberation may cause traffic congestion. However, it is considered of utmost importance to deliver safe crossing points for pedestrians, cyclists and other non-motorised forms of traffic. | None |
KOS1 would be a good site for a new hospital. | Noted: The guidance explicitly states that a thorough process of island and stakeholder communication and engagement, alongside technical and financial assessments of deliverability, is underway to identify a preferred site for a future hospital. In the event that the preferred site affects land embraced by the South West St. Helier Planning Framework this supplementary planning guidance will require further review and amendment. | None |
The requirement for KOS1 to provide at least 520 car-parking spaces is excessive and runs counter to the aims of encouraging a modal shift in transport in the interests of sustainability and carbon neutrality. | Noted: Car parking to serve the needs of individual developments will be assessed on a site-by-site basis having regard to planning policy and any associated planning guidance. The framework does include a requirement to provide 520 car parking spaces within KOS1, 2 and, potentially, KOS3. This requirement will be reviewed in line with any forthcoming sustainable transport strategy and/or parking strategy. | None |
KOS2: Esplanade Quarter (West) |
The area of KOS2 should be extended to take in Les Jardin de la Mer, La Fregate and West Park in order to secure improvements to the western gateway to town. | Accepted: It is acknowledged that there is merit in extending the boundary of KOS2 – to embrace Les Jardin de la Mer, La Fregate and West Park (limited to the area south of Esplanade/ Victoria Avenue) in order to facilitate the delivery of improvements to the town’s western gateway in accord with the principles and objectives of this guidance, and to better integrate these areas into the wider framework area. It would, however, need to be explicitly acknowledged that there is a requirement to maintain and enhance the provision of public open space; associated café and ancillary leisure facilities; and provision of pedestrian, cycling and public transport infrastructure as part of any regeneration proposals in this locality. | Amend map and amend text of KOS2 |
Cues should not be taken from St Helier’s historic waterfront. Design should respond to planning and design principles of the modern age. It is the quality that counts. Cues could also be taken from successful international urban waterfronts. | Partly accepted: The framework states that “…the pattern of new development could [author’s emphasis] take its cue from the historic waterside development on the northern side of the Esplanade…” . This is not a prescriptive requirement and is simply intended to highlight one possible approach to design within the site. It is also acknowledged that lessons can be learned from successful waterfront developments around the world, however, it is important to ensure that new development is locally relevant and contributes to a sense of place that is identifiable and relevant to the island and to St Helier | Amend text of KOS2 |
KOS2 would be a good site for a new hospital. | Noted: The guidance explicitly states that a thorough process of island and stakeholder communication and engagement, alongside technical and financial assessments of deliverability, is underway to identify a preferred site for a future hospital. In the event that the preferred site affects land embraced by the South West St. Helier Planning Framework this supplementary planning guidance will require further review and amendment. | None |
- Building heights should be higher.
- Building heights should be mixed to add interest.
- Building heights of residential should not exceed two storeys.
| Noted: See comment on KOS1. | None |
Open space for festivals / BBQs etc. and alfresco dining should be encouraged. | Noted: The framework would facilitate such uses. | None |
New parking areas should be required to replace the existing temporary surface car park. | Noted: See comment on KOS1. | None |
KOS3: Aquasplash / Cineworld |
General agreement with KOS3 subject to no loss of sports / recreational facilities. | Noted. | None |
Cues should not be taken from St Helier’s historic waterfront. Design should respond to planning and design principles of the modern age. It is the quality that counts. | Noted: See response to KOS2 | None |
If certain uses currently accommodated in KOS3 were relocated to Fort Regent (or elsewhere), then KOS3 could deliver additional residential accommodation alongside recreational / leisure uses. | Accepted: In that the event that large floor-plate uses such as the swimming pool / cinema relocate, then a mixed use of the site would be encouraged, to include residential and recreational. | Amend text of KOS3 |
KOS3 would be a good site for a new hospital. | Noted: The guidance explicitly states that a thorough process of island and stakeholder communication and engagement, alongside technical and financial assessments of deliverability, is underway to identify a preferred site for a future hospital. In the event that the preferred site affects land embraced by the South West St. Helier Planning Framework this supplementary planning guidance will require further review and amendment. | None |
There are already plenty of links between town and the Waterfront – no more are needed. | Noted: No new crossing points between town and KOS3 are currently proposed although pedestrian crossings over the underpass will be enhanced. | None |
There should be no requirement for the provision of car parking in KOS3. | Noted: See response to KOS1. | None |
PDS4: Elizabeth Terminal – The Freight Park |
Freight operations should be re-located to La Collette; away from the Waterfront residential areas. | Noted: The long-term future of PDS4 will be dependent upon the operational requirements of the Ports of Jersey. | None |
As first point of entry to the island for many visitors, the area should be enhanced. | Noted: The framework would not preclude enhancements being made within PDS4, but explicit encouragement for this could be incorporated within the guidance. | Amend text of PDS4 |
PDS5: Ports and Harbours |
La Folie site should be brought back into beneficial use. | Noted: The development opportunity presented by the La Folie site is already explicitly acknowledged and the framework would allow for its regeneration to a beneficial use. | None |
Cargo activities should be removed from New North Quay and Albert Pier to release land for leisure etc. | Noted: The release of these areas will be dependent upon the re-configuration of the existing port operations having regard to the need to maintain a viable and operational port which is of strategic importance to the island. In the event that the quays / piers are released from commercial operations, then the framework would envisage a mix of new uses, including leisure, and open space. | None |
A deep-water berth is required | Noted: This is an operational issue for the Ports of Jersey and out of scope of this planning framework. | None |
A 24/7 marina should be created. | Noted: The framework would not presume against the creation of a full water marina and this suggestion may be given further consideration as part of the Island Plan review. | None |
KOS6: Liberation Square, Weighbridge and the Steam Clock |
Some support for partial pedestrianisation and traffic calming with restricted access. | Noted: This accords with the framework’s objectives. | None |
Any further restriction of traffic flows around the Pomme d’Or area would impact upon local businesses. | Noted: The impact of any traffic management proposals upon local business would need to be considered as part of the consultation process associated with any specific proposals. | None |
Any proposal for merging or re-working these three areas should be well thought out and not rushed. Appropriate facilities (W.Cs, baby changing facilities etc) should be incorporated into the design for the space. | Accepted: If KOS6 is to be successful, then it needs to be well planned with community engagement playing a key part in any new design. The provision of additional facilities to support functions in the space should be considered in any new design. | Amend text of KOS6 |
The Steam Clock should be removed as it serves no purpose. | Noted. | None |
The Steam Clock should be repaired and preserved a part of our heritage. | Noted. | None |
KOS7: La Route de la Liberation |
General agreement with KOS7. | Noted. | None |
Impact on traffic and pollution would out-weigh any benefits. | Noted: The proposals for KOS7 are considered to be necessary to re-integrate town with the Waterfront. | None |
The road could be lowered from the current underpass to beyond the Gloucester Street junction, left open and bridged. | Noted: The framework acknowledges that the longer-term future of La Route de la Liberation needs to be explored in greater detail. Separate studies may be undertaken in time which would consider all options for the road including the potential to construct an elegant bridging structure. However, it is not currently considered to be economically viable to lower the road. | None |
KOS8: Commercial Buildings |
The idea to re-route the road to the rear of Commercial Buildings has no logic to it. | Noted: The suggestion in the planning framework is that the feasibility of such a proposal ‘may warrant exploration’. This could be a long-term vision and has been included to highlight the need for innovative thinking to address the issues caused by the dominance of motor traffic. | None |
A new 600-space car park could be provided beneath the Old Harbour marina (between Commercial Bldgs and New North Quay). | Noted: The framework does not specify solutions to issues but, instead, encourages innovative thinking, especially around the desire to reduce the dominance of motor traffic. The framework would not, necessarily, presume against a new sub-surface car park within the area. | None |
The road outside Commercial Buildings should be enhanced to make it a more pleasant and safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists. Car parking either side of the road should be reduced significantly. | Partly accepted: The environment outside of Commercial Buildings could be enhanced as part of a wider strategy to make the pedestrian / cycle link between Havre des Pas and Town more safe and attractive to users. | Amend text of KOS8 |
KOS9: Fort Regent |
General agreement with KOS9. | Noted. | None |
The site would make an excellent venue for concerts, recording studios and for hosting seminars etc. Accommodation could be provided on the site of the former swimming pool. | Noted: Options for the future use of Fort Regent will need to be the subject of a separate study. The framework encourages ‘meanwhile’ uses for the Fort – short-term uses / events such as concerts, markets and community events can all help bring a site or an area to life and can help focus efforts on local regeneration strategies. | None |
The fort should either be presented as an historic monument; or should be included in a broader sports facilities strategy; or developed for residential, hotel, casino, cinema etc. | Noted: The framework acknowledges the possibilities for KOS9 and the need for the adoption of an island-wide sports strategy to inform the choices. | None |
KOS10: South Hill |
Should be redeveloped as a prime residential site. | Noted: The framework does suggest that ‘…the site would lend itself to a high-quality residential development, or possibly a hotel.’ | None |
KOS10 is not an appropriate site for a hotel. | Not accepted: Given the nature of the site with its commanding views and easy access to town and to the east, a hotel is considered to be an appropriate use for the site. | None |
Other comment |
Additional KOS La Collette: Could this be accepted as a KOS? | Not accepted: La Collette was not identified as a KOS as development opportunities here are constrained by the fact that the entire area sits within the safety zone for hazardous installations where there is a presumption against many forms of development. | None |
gov.je