The principle of developing this land for Category ‘A’ housing has already been approved by the States of Jersey in the Island Plan 2002. An extensive public consultation exercise has been carried out, including a public exhibition, four public meetings with local residents and a ‘technical seminar’ with selected residents who had previously submitted written representations (see Planning History). The earliest consultations related to a larger scheme comprising 150 homes and the responses were reported to the former Environment and Public Services Committee, before the development brief was subsequently approved and an application invited. The original application was for a lesser scheme of 140 homes in a broadly similar layout. It sought to create a tight-knit village street arrangement with continuous enclosed facades and rear courtyards for communal parking. In addition to reduced housing numbers, there were other changes in response to matters raised previously by local residents; officers and the Committee. The previous scheme for inter alia 129 homes was conceptually similar to its predecessor and included further significant changes in response to other matters raised by local residents, planning officers, consultees, the former Committee and the current Minister. That application was refused by the Minister following a ‘Public Hearing’ for reasons set out earlier, relating to: overdevelopment; housing site boundary infringements; education capacity; noise impact from Jersey Steel; and external design of homes. The current application (as amended) for 102 Category A homes employs a different layout concept which is more sub-urban in nature, although it does attempt to subdivide the development into individual communities around their own courtyards. There has been a heavy concentration on the elevational treatment of the buildings to increase the relevance of the design to Jersey. These proposals must now be judged on their merits having regard to the Island Plan; the Development Brief as amended by the Minister’s findings and decisions in relation to the previous application; the steers given by the Minister primarily in relation to design; and all other material planning considerations, including material representations made by or on behalf of local residents. In doing so, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that the land in question is zoned specifically to meet the Island’s identified housing needs and this, together with the development brief and other subsequent guidance, provides a very clear indication to the applicant and anyone else as to the manner in which the land is expected to be used. That said, it is apparent from the representations received that local residents still have a number of outstanding concerns, which feature in the planning issues addressed below. Suitability of the Site for Development? There is no such thing as a perfect housing site and each site option will have its advantages and disadvantages. The site in question was selected after a rigorous and comprehensive evaluation and selection process involving numerous other sites (described on pages 8.14 and 8.15 of the Island Plan) and following extensive public consultation at the draft plan stage. In common with all the sites investigated, a ‘feasibility study’ was carried out involving consultations with all service providers and no matters were raised at the time which indicated the site to be unsuitable for development. However, Health Protection did belatedly (some three weeks after the land had been rezoned) forward amended comments questioning the suitability of the site, predominantly because of noise from Jersey Steel. The numerous advantages identified during the site feasibility and evaluation stages included: the position of the site on the edge of the existing built-up area and the opportunity for successful integration with that area; the opportunity to access the site from a main distributor road; availability of nearby bus routes and an excellent cycle track to town and the opportunities for using travel modes other than the car; the nestling of the site below the south coast escarpment and the potential for development without adversely impacting on the wider landscape; the site’s relatively unrestricted size and shape; its limited agricultural status of the land; the generally favourable ground conditions over most of the housing site; the reasonable proximity to Beaumont and St. Helier; close proximity to a primary school and other community facilities including the beach, café and shopping precinct at Sandybrook (more recently replaced by a shop selling art materials); the opportunity to create a new public amenity area / country park / ecological wetland for the benefit of proposed residents and the wider existing community which could act as a focus at the heart of the sprawling peripheral developments around the marsh; the opportunity for funding the construction of a new surface water pumping station at the lower end of the Perquage watercourse; the opportunity to provide other community facilities; the potential for improvements to the St. Peter’s Valley Road (road widening / realignment, footpaths, pedestrian crossing); the then predicted availability of primary school places by 2006; the fact that all the required services could be provided (albeit that drainage costs would be relatively high); the absence of restrictive covenants which might inhibit development; the absence of any adverse/prohibitive comments from consultees (N.B. including Health and Social Services at that time). the site’s availability. It has been pointed out that recent changes in the vicinity (e.g. the closure of the hairdresser, laundry and corner shop at Sandybrook and the Britannia Pub) make the site less attractive. However, there are many other things listed above which indicate the suitability of the site. Furthermore, it is quite possible that the use of the retail unit at Sandybrook could change again to some other form of shop/s at some point in the future (N.B. In planning terms a shop is a shop is a shop). Development in the Area There are those who continue to argue that the area has already had enough development in recent times and it now too built-up. It is certainly true to say that there has been a significant amount of housing development in the general area along the bottom of St. Peter’s Valley Road and St. Aubin’s Road in recent times, including: Magnolia Hotel site – 44 apartments Millbrook Crescent (adj. Milbrook Manor / opposite Coronation Park) – 22 apartments La Vallee Mews (Britannia Car Park site) – 9 cottages Sunwaye Gardens (Bel Royal Gardens) – net 3 houses La Grande Aumont (former Coralie Hotel) – 48 flats Catholic Church – 15 homes White Heather Hotel (Rue de Haut) – 10 houses soon to start? La Follie Estate -17 houses This is primarily part of the normal market led development / regeneration process in the built-up area. The bulk of the new homes result from the redevelopment of outworn commercial properties. However, some advantage has been taken of the opportunities presented by the extended built-up area boundary which was redefined by the current Island Plan. Although the amount of recent development is significant, it has taken place in an already highly developed and predominantly residential area and the proposed development would effectively represent an extension of the built-up area at Sandybrook and along the St. Peter’s Valley Road escarpment. This is not, therefore, considered sufficient grounds for refusing development of the site in question. Level of Proposed Housing Development The level of development variously proposed for the site has been the main objection of residents from the outset of the planning process. Many residents still claim there are too many houses proposed. Some argue this will lead to problems in relation to traffic, primary school capacity, drainage and flooding, social disorder and environmental impact (N.B. These issues are dealt with on an individual basis in this report). Others maintain that the scale of the proposed development is against the spirit of the Island Plan guidelines. The current scheme of 102 new homes is a reduction of 27 from the previous application (-21%), 38 from the first application (-27%) and 48 from the original proposal that was first presented to the Public in December 2003 (-32%). Claims by some residents that the current application would result in more people and, therefore, more problems than the previous scheme, because of the increase in the proportion of larger units, are erroneous. There current proposals indicate a 19% reduction in the number of habitable rooms and an 18% reduction in the theoretical occupancy of the site, over the previous application. The current application proposes 5 more homes than the estimated theoretical potential yield of 97 homes included in the Island Plan. The Island Plan makes it clear in relation to the calculation of yields that “the figures are only an indication of yield for the site, because the mix of size and type of homes will be determined through the development brief process for each site…”. There is also a commitment in the Plan to determine the actual yield through the development brief process and recognition of the need to achieve higher densities in order to “…use land efficiently and for sites to be feasibly served by public transport”. The approved development brief promotes a sustainable approach to the provision of Category A housing and includes a commitment to provide an efficient and effective use of land by supporting and encouraging schemes which assist in achieving higher density than the more typical family housing densities (not least because in Jersey land is a scarce and finite resource and using it efficiently can help save further land from development). The brief calls for a density which is “the highest consistent with maintaining high standards of design, space about buildings and privacy, appropriate to the type of accommodation provided and the general surroundings”. Throughout the protracted planning history of this site, previous Committees took the view that the theoretical yields in the Island Plan are entirely notional and that an appropriate yield and density should properly emerge from a design-led process that seeks to best accommodate the identified planning requirements, not from some pre-determined theoretical number of homes. In addressing the previous application for 129 homes, the Minister took a slightly different view. He argued that because the Island Plan uses the expression “approximately 97 homes” to describe the indicative yield, it implies that any scheme should relate to, or bear some resemblance to 97 homes. As the previous application was 33% greater than the indicative yield, he deemed this to be an unacceptable departure from the Island Plan and “overdevelopment”. The current application for 102 homes is now only 5% above the indicative yield in the Island Plan and so, in this respect, addresses one of the main reasons for refusing the previous application. As such, the current proposals are at the lower end of the precedents set by previously approved comparative sites (see Appendix 19). The Minister has previously made this clear to the House in replying to a question from the Constable of St. Lawrence (November 2002), when he explained why he did not intend to amend the Island Plan so that “a maximum of 97 homes could be created on the site”, in line with a previous States decision. Density As alluded to earlier, the development brief calls for an efficient and effective use of land and encourages the highest density consistent with maintaining high standards of design, space about buildings and privacy, appropriate to the type of accommodation provided and the general surroundings. From the outset, it has been recognised that the density of any scheme is best determined by a design-led approach, which meets the identified planning requirements and that, to seek to rigidly apply strict theoretical density standards in advance of the design process would present a crude and unreasonable approach to controlling the development of the site. That said, the proposed gross residential density based on the total developable area set aside for housing (9.5 acres) and the proposed 534 habitable rooms, is approximately 56 habitable rooms per acre (hra). Only one other comparative site zoned in the Island Plan has an approved / planned gross density below that figure (see Appendix 20), which is significantly below the gross densities of most peripheral Category A housing sites developed in the last 20 odd years. Of course, the proposed development appears denser, because much of the site zoned for housing and, notably, Field 853 is to remain undeveloped. The net residential density for the developed part of the site only (approx. 7.2 acres) is 74hra. It has long been generally accepted that the maximum density for houses with private gardens is 75hra and larger housing developments on peripheral sites in the last 20 odd years have tended to be developed at net densities between 65 and 75hra. A net density of 74hra is not considered excessive per se, given the need to use land economically and the large area of public open amenity space adjacent to the site, provided that the scheme is designed to create a successful and attractive living environment for future occupants, which satisfactorily addresses identified and normal planning requirements. Tenure Mix Island Plan Policy H1 currently requires a tenure split of 55% first-time buyer homes and 45% social rented. However, the tenure mix of the current proposed homes is not stated in the application drawings and they are simply referred to as private sector homes on the application form. Clearly, it would be necessary for any approved scheme to be the subject of planning conditions and obligations relating to tenure, to ensure the land is used for the purposes for which it was zoned (i.e. Category A homes to meet community requirements). To some extent, it might be argued that the tenure requirements set out in the Island Plan are being overtaken by events. The new Ministerial Government seems set on promoting an increase in home ownership through the introduction of more affordable ‘shared equity’ homes, as set out in the Strategic Plan. In addition, the requirements for new social rented homes have been significantly reduced by recent developments and there is a looming requirement for smaller homes to meet the specific needs of elderly residents. This latter requirement is projected to increase rapidly over the next 20 years as the population ages and the ‘baby boomers’ enter their retirement years. For his part, the Minister is keen to readdress the tenure requirements set out in IP Policy H1 to allow for the promotion of shared equity homes and sheltered / last time homes and ensure that housing needs are properly addressed. He has taken legal advise on this matter and is committed to bringing a proposition to the House in the near future. In the interim, any conditions and obligations related to tenure must reflect existing tenure requirements and potential changes to them. Sheltered Homes The development brief calls for the provision of some sheltered housing, which are, in effect, ‘special needs units’ and suggests 15-20 units. Furthermore, Island Plan Policy H12 requires that at least 5% of the proposed homes be fully accessible to meet the specific needs of the elderly and those with disabilities. Requirements for such homes have taken on added significance in recent months, given the findings of the latest ‘Planning for Homes’ report and the ‘Social Housing Property Plan’, which highlight the need to plan now for the projected rapid increase in the numbers of residents over retirement age from 2010 to 2030. Previous applications have all featured the provision of such units, but they did not feature in the original drawings for the current application, prompting objections from local residents. The amended drawings now show five such units, which are described as ‘lifetime homes’, representing 5% of the total number of proposed homes. On balance, it is considered that this is a reasonable number, given: The requirements of IP Policy H12; The recently completed nearby scheme for 150 retirement homes at the former Hotel L’Hermitage site; The Minister was not opposed to 5% of homes proposed in the previous scheme being used for such purposes. However, the size, design and layout of the proposed homes is not acceptable. Extent of Housing Development One of the Minister’s grounds for refusing the previous application was that the proposed housing development extended beyond the site zoned for Category A housing and into an area designated as ‘Important Open Space’, where the overall aim is to protect the area from development. In his report, the Minister stated that the housing site area boundaries “should not be compromised” and found it “unacceptable that the presently proposed housing development and associated road infrastructure and community building fall outside the housing boundary agreed by the States in 2002.” The current application shows that the proposed housing to be more or less confined to the rezoned site. The previously agreed encroachment of between 5m and 10m to the south has been reined back. However, there are a number of proposed developments which do extend eastwards beyond the housing site boundary, including: the vehicular access to the site; a community building; a 25 space car parking area; a residential parking courtyard; the corners of two domestic gardens and the proposed play areas for children and teenagers. In relation to these developments, it should be pointed out that: The vehicular access point was moved eastwards in response to public consultation, to take it further away from the junction of Rue De La Blanche Pierre, with the support of TTS and the former Environment and Public Services Committee. It also has the advantage of allowing improved access to the adjacent property and the extinguishing of the existing poor access. The community building is intended to serve the proposed new residents and the wider community. It could also serve to enhance the use of the proposed public amenity area and be used, for example, for exhibitions etc which help to interpret the wetland habitat. The play areas for children and teenagers are effectively a part of the public open space and intended for use by the proposed residents and the wider community. The 25 space car park is intended to serve the proposed public amenity area, the children’s play area and the community building. There are clear advantages in locating these facilities intended for wider communal use in close proximity to each other and in an accessible location outside the housing development and at a major entry point to the public amenity area. Of the encroaching uses, only the corners of two private gardens and a small parking courtyard (No.7) are exclusively part of the housing development and the latter would remain effectively free of buildings. On balance, it is considered that the developments outside the housing site boundary which are currently proposed are not unreasonable, or unacceptable, particularly given: The importance of providing homes to meet the communities requirements; all the major gains achieved in the design of the proposed new development, so late in the planning process, the somewhat arbitrary boundary between the housing site and the public open space, which bares no relation to field boundaries, or any other physical features. Layout and Place Making. From the outset and ever since, former Committees and the Minister have been keen to improve the design quality of Category A housing developments on land zoned for the purpose in the Island Plan. To this end, the development briefs for this and the other sites make reference to emerging new guidance on design principles and standards for new residential development. This draft guidance (currently undergoing scrutiny) is intended to expand upon and supplement the broad strategic policies contained in the Island Plan. All the previous housing schemes for the site followed a similar design and layout concept, which sought to create a tight-knit village street arrangement with continuous facades uninterrupted by drives and garages, communal car parking within internal courtyards and facades built on or close to the back-of- pavement line. In doing so, they took on board many of the fundamental principles of good design, as promoted by the DETR, Cabe and others. When the original plans for the current application were submitted, it was clear that the layout had been completely reworked and seemed to have lost out to the new emphasis being placed on the redesign of the buildings. It was now a more rigid sub-urban estate type layout with regularly spaced blocks of houses (albeit more attractive in appearance) along either side of estates roads and was disappointing in a number of ways, not least because: · it was completely inward looking (turning its back on all the surrounding public areas); · the distinction between ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ spaces was blurred in many parts of the development, acting against the interests of security, privacy and more attractive public areas; · the estate roads had become a dominant feature and the requirements of the car had been given more prominence; · there was little variety / contrast in the public spaces; · the parking provision was completely inadequate; · the footpath running north/south through the scheme was not sufficiently well defined and the required footpath link along Vallee de St. Pierre to Sandybrook Lane had been omitted; · there were a number of left over and unresolved spaces and awkwardly related buildings throughout the scheme. These issues have been addressed by the revised drawings, which pay greater heed to the fundamental principles of good design. It is now considered that the amended scheme should : create a place with its own identity; generally makes a clear distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ areas; include attractive landscaped public areas; be relatively easy to get to and move through; present a clear image, which is easy to understand; within the limitations of the rezoning, provide a reasonable variety of accommodation types. Also, in general terms, the layout (subject to recommended amendments / conditions) should serve to: Help facilitate social interaction; Allow good surveillance over private and public realms; Help create a pleasant and secure environment, with high quality hard and soft landscaping; Help create an environment with more priority given to pedestrians; Provide homes which immediately give onto private gardens and attractive public areas; Avoid undue prejudice to adjacent properties. External Design of the Homes The external design of buildings is a priority consideration for the Minister who instigated a design review in respect of the previous application, in order to achieve more local relevance and secure design improvements. Although the resultant work did achieve some improvements to the elevations, these were of an insufficiently high standard to satisfy the Minister. As a consequence, in determining the previous application, the Minister cited the unacceptable design of the houses as a ground for refusal. A steer was given to the applicants on how the form and elevations of the new homes might best be treated and, by and large, the new designs achieve what was asked for. They take their cues from 150-200 year old buildings found elsewhere in the Island and, in this respect, can be said to demonstrate local relevance. The designs include inter alia the introduction / employment of: FORM typical terraced forms; steeper roofs (40 and 45 degrees); DETAIL clipped eaves and verges; cement coping at verges; more vertically proportioned windows (to look like sash windows); timber windows and doors; deeper window reveals; some window surrounds, lintels and sill details; round hooded dormer windows; plinth features; low front garden walls with railings for the blocks fronting the northern part of the loop road and other blocks along the southern and eastern development boundary; feature granite walls with granite and brick trimming around door and window openings; granite quoins; scribed coursework; chimneys with fireplaces on gable ends; ogee gutters; Vertically battened timber-effect garage doors. MATERIALS painted render walls (using earth colours); use of reconstituted slate and some pantiles for the roofs; use of granite for feature walls. The new designs were presented to the ‘Design Review Group’ in December 2006. The Group was very supportive of the elevational treatments for the proposed homes and only raised a few minor points of detail where it was thought improvements might be made, including: natural slates should be used rather than reconstituted ones; doubling up of dormers and windows in unit types C1 and C2 should be resolved to create more balanced appearance to the elevations; the exposed gables of granite fronted houses at the end of terrace blocks should also be finished in granite. In addition, the Minister has indicated that: the designs for the proposed door hoods are unacceptable; in larger terrace blocks where the ridge line is unbroken / unrelieved, there should be chimneys for all the houses to add vertical contrast to the horizontal roof shape (not just at the gables). Where these detailed issues have not been addressed by the amended application drawings, they can be dealt with by planning conditions as reserved matters. N.B. The applicant has previously indicated that they are not prepared to consider the introduction of false chimneys where there is no functional need, simply for their visual / aesthetic qualities and this is not something that would normally be supported by the Department. Home Design and Internal Space Standards The development brief asks that all housing types be designed, having regard to the proposed minimum floorspace standards and other specifications included in Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) 1, as it was at that time. However, it would be difficult to resist any scheme, where it complies with the existing published space standards set out in Planning Policy Note No.6. In the event, with the exception of the type C units, all the proposed family houses comply with the Draft SPG1 and are at least 5% greater in floor area than the current published minimum (N.B. The floor areas of unit types B and D are 14% above published standards). They are also generally in accordance with minimum space requirements for: combined floor area of living, dining and kitchen areas; and main, secondary and single bedrooms. The type C units would also comply if they are recognised as 5 person rather than 6 person homes. Whilst they meet minimum floorspace requirement, it is noted that the small single 3rd bedrooms in Type A units and 4th bedrooms in unit types B and D are restricted in shape, but this is not regarded as sufficient grounds to refuse the design. Normal standards for the provision of internal storage space are met in all but 1 house type. Unit type A will rely heavily on the provision of an outside store (and storage provided by future residents) for ground floor storage provision and this issue would need to be addressed by condition. Some local residents have suggested that the proposed homes are too small. It is important to recognise that there are many families who have been successfully brought up in Jersey in houses of a similar size over the last 30 years. In this regard, it is interesting to note the findings of the latest ‘Jersey Annual Social Survey’. This found that nearly nine out of ten people are satisfied with their accommodation, with 65% of people being very satisfied. Obviously, many people will have a preference for more space, but there has to be a sensible trade-off to achieve affordability and viability. The important thing is to ensure sufficient space of the right type is available for the normal functioning of a family. The minimum standards operated by the planning department are effectively a safety net in this regard. Design of Lifetime Units (Sheltered Units) The design of the proposed lifetime units is completely different from that of the lifetime units proposed previously. The proposed floorspace is below minimum standards and the internal layout will not comply with accessibility and adaptability requirements sought by the development brief and soon to be incorporated into Part 8 of the Building Byelaws. In the circumstances, the designs would have to be reserved by planning condition. Sustainability in Design The development brief tries to encourage a sustainable approach to design, especially in areas such as energy efficiency and water conservation. However, some local residents argue that only a minimal attempt has been made at addressing sustainability issues. Of course, it would be highly desirable to insist upon the adoption of radical low energy designs for the proposed new development and a scheme which reflects the best known sustainable housing initiatives elsewhere. However, it is important to recognise that the Minister must consider applications on the basis of existing policy and it would be difficult to insist upon many sustainability measures at this time, in the absence of published planning policies with firm requirements, no matter how desirable they may seem. It is anticipated that this situation will change when the Island Plan is reviewed and new supplementary guidance and up-dated Bye-Laws are issued relating to the design of new homes. In the interim, the emphasis must remain on seeking to encourage the introduction of sustainability measures. Those relevant to the current application include: The southerly orientation of many of the homes allowing for passive solar gain (N.B. Disappointingly, the proportion of homes orientated within 30 to 40 degrees of South has fallen from 61% in the previous application to 53%); Hot water units in the roofs of each home to allow for easy connection of solar hot water heating panels at a later date; The use of compact building forms (terraces) with low external wall to floor ratios; Rainwater harvesting through water butts for each home (reintroduced as part of the revised scheme); Dual flush toilets and flow restrictors on taps are to be fitted as standard; Thermal insulation, heating and ventilation (to be covered by the Building Byelaws); Various measures to encourage use of sustainable transport modes (walking, cycling, bus travel); Extensive landscaping to enhance the character and ecological value of the marsh area; Retention of mature trees where possible and extensive new tree planting; Provision of open space and community facilities and the creation of a good quality and safe environment for people to live in. External Space Standards The scheme incorporates a wide range of private garden sizes and all meet or exceed the minimum space standard of 50m² for family homes. Public Open Space and Children’s Play Space The normal public open space requirements for a scheme of this size would be 1.5 acres (3.4 vergees), but the development brief requires an area of no less than 0.25 acres, with the remaining requirements met from the public amenity area to the south (i.e. which comprises over 11 acres). Within the defined housing site, it is proposed to provide a village square (approx. 0.17 acres) and a landscaped buffer zone to Le Perquage (approx. 2.3 acres). In addition there are proposals for an equipped children’s play area and a teenager play facility, which together measure approx. 0.3 acres. Provision for younger children’s play should be well catered for in the proposed scheme in: private gardens; the buffer strip to Le Perquage; the children’s play area; the amenity area to the south; the footpath / cycle network; some of the quieter / less busy roadways; and, potentially the community building. The needs of older children to congregate, hang around and kick/throw a ball should be met, to some extent, in the immediate area by the proposed teenager facility (including sports wall and kick about area) and, possibly, the community building. Provision for Refuse The application includes the provision of 8 communal refuse / recycle bin stores at various locations throughout the proposed development, which will contain euro-type waste and glass bins. These will be accessible to the Parish refuse vehicle for collection. The layout also provides the opportunity for individual bin storage at all the proposed properties. Landscaping Proposals The development brief requires that landscaping be an integral element of the design and layout process. The landscaping framework, produced by Michael Felton Ltd., is informed by a tree condition survey and a detailed ecological assessment and generally looks to retain and enhance, as far as possible, the wildlife value and landscape character of the area. It provides the basis for an imaginative and comprehensive approach to the proposed landscaping, which compliments the housing layout and should ensure attractive, good quality external spaces. The framework is sensitive to the existing character of the wetland and the surrounding areas and its key elements include: retention of good quality trees where practicable (including boundary trees to the north of the site; tree along Le Perquage; trees alongside the track to the north of Field 851; hedgerow trees to the south of Field 851; and the existing willow carr); replacement of lost trees on a 2.5 to 1 basis; tree planting and robust shrub planting, groundcover and climbers in the housing area (e.g. parking courtyards, open spaces, garden areas); minimal planting and disturbance in the wetlands, but with some native tree, shrub and ground flora suitable for wetland locations (including reed planting); the creation of two ‘scrapes’ (widened drainage ditches) where water naturally collects; the extension of the existing willow carr (and managing it through coppicing); use of existing tracks with new paths and raised timber walkways to provide links to Le Perquage and Route de la Haule; a planted mound which will screen the proposed development from Le Perquage Walk. Any forthcoming permit would carry a condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme which fleshes out the submitted landscaping framework and provides detailed planting schedules. Impact on the local environment Some residents remain concerned that the development will harm the character of the area and lead to destruction of the natural habitat and local wildlife. Clearly, the development of housing on any green field site will have an impact on the existing character and amenity of the area. This (and the loss of open agricultural land) was one of the factors weighed in the balance before selecting the site for housing purposes. In this instance, however, the impact on the wider landscape will not be unduly great, given that the proposed housing will nestle at the foot of the coastal escarpment, some higher parts of the site will be lowered as a consequence of “cut and fill” proposals, existing hedgerows to the south will be retained and there is extensive additional planting proposed. The impact on the character and tranquillity of Le Perquage Walk will also be minimised (as required by the development brief) by a proposed planted bund, which will effectively screen the housing development from immediate view. This ‘buffer strip’ between Le Perquage and the proposed housing now extend the whole width of Field 853. It should also be recognised that much of the low-lying land to the south will be retained as open area and its amenity value will be enhanced by the proposals for landscaping and pedestrian access. Of course, there will always be problems when any new housing is located in close proximity to an area to be set aside for wildlife (more people, more predatory cats etc). However, the landscape framework for the area has been informed by an ecological assessment as required by the Development Brief and as part of an integrated approach to the built form and landscape. The ecological review was produced following consultation with a local ornithologist and the States Ecologist at Environmental Services. Interestingly, although the low lying areas to the south are highlighted in the report as the most ecologically important, the area is not visited by particularly rare bird life requiring specific protection, nor were the habitat types regarded as particularly unusual or species rich (with the possible exception of the Willow Carr). As alluded to earlier, the proposed landscaping in the low lying area is designed to retain and enhance its overall character, increase species diversity and enhance the existing habitat potential, whilst allowing for pedestrian access. It is envisaged that water levels will remain pretty much as they are at present and the proposed surface water pumping station will only cut in when levels reach a critical level and threaten to flood existing properties. The issue of potential impact on wildlife and habitat was specifically addressed by the Minister in his report on the previous application, when he concluded: “I am satisfied that these issues have been reasonably addressed by the environmental work required and carried out in association with the application, together with the deliberations of former Committees. Most developments will have some impact on the habitat and wildlife and this is no exception. However, the effect is considered reasonable in this case”. Clearly, the current application will have less environmental impact that the previous scheme, because there are fewer homes and there is less encroachment towards Le Perquage. Roadside Oak Trees Some residents have expressed concern at the potential loss of mature roadside trees along St. Peter’s Valley Road and this point was raised at the most recent public meeting. There are 12 mature oak trees, one sycamore and one ash set on a 1.5m bank along the northern roadside boundary of Field 851. Whilst the development brief encourages there retention, if possible, it is proposed that these be removed to achieve highway improvements, including an extension of the existing roadside pavement to La Rue de la Blanche Pierre, a pedestrian refuge and a vehicular access with required visibility. Some of the trees are not healthy and wet rot cavities are evident at their bases. According to the tree survey conducted in consultation with the States arboriculturalist, only one tree is classified as having the highest retention value, the retention of 5 others would be desirable in normal circumstances, 4 do not merit retention in any event and 3 are dying or dangerous. This may explain, in part, why the roadside trees which previously extended south-eastwards from the application site were removed some years ago. In May 2004, the former Planning Sub-Committee agreed that “the safety benefits associated with the road works were considered to outweigh the retention of the trees, and accordingly approved their removal subject to the reinstatement of the roadside wall, banque and trees along the new road alignment. It further considered that the replacement trees should be of the ‘heavy standard’ type”. The Development Brief recognises that the trees could potentially be lost, emphasises that highway safety must not be compromised and reflects the former Sub-Committee’s decision on reinstatement. Following the most recent public meeting, the Minister asked that further consideration be given to whether there is scope for some or all of the trees to be saved. The matter was put to the TTS (Highways Department), which responded as follows: “Regrettably, I do not believe there is potential to create the essential road improvements for pedestrian safety without removing all the roadside trees to the south of the existing track. The road needs to be widened to provide a footpath on the north side (minimum width 1.3m) joining to Rue de la Blanche Pierre and a pedestrian refuge at the entrance to the new site. This cannot be achieved without the loss of the trees”. The proposed replacement of the feature on a new alignment could be reinforced by planning condition. Proposed Footpath Connections A major aim of both the development brief and the application scheme is to ensure the new development is permeable and well integrated into the existing area, through a network of convenient and safe pedestrian/cycle routes. However, in any footpath system, there also needs to be a sensible trade-off between these requirements and the interests of crime prevention. The scheme is very permeable and will provide good access throughout the site for people of varying levels of mobility, so promoting interaction and vitality in the public realm. There are three main pedestrian routes proposed to serve the housing development, including: a north/south spine route through the centre of the proposed development; an east/west route along the southern edge of the proposed development, effectively linking St. Peter’s Valley to Le Perquage Walk (i.e. the main pedestrian and cycle route serving the area and linking Sandybrook to the Coast); and a footpath link between Sandybrook and St. Peter’s Valley Road. All these routes are subject to reasonable levels of natural surveillance from nearby homes and others using the public realm and each house is connected to them either directly or through a network of footpaths. Footpaths from parking courtyards are intended to give access to the residents who live around them and they are to be gated for security reasons and so that pedestrians are channelled to the main public areas. Apart from the proposed footpath running along the southern edge of the housing site, the only other footpath planned to serve the wetland amenity area involves the raising of the existing track adjacent to the western boundary of Field 862, so linking the site to the coast. One resident has expressed concern that there are no proper footpath links beyond the site from Le Perquage to Beaumont, other than Rue de Craslin and Route de la Haule. In the light of this, he suggests that the walk from Le Perquage along the bottom of Goose Green Marsh be improved and that a new footpath be provided to the south of Jersey Steel to link to the road by the former Bantry Hotel and the existing path running south to the Co-Op Car Park. There would appear to be considerable merit in these proposals, but the land is outside the control of the applicants and, even if the landowners were supportive, it is not thought appropriate to make this a requirement of the current application at this late stage in the planning process (especially given the other substantive obligations to be placed on the applicants to achieve community gains). Should the current application be supported, it would be necessary to include a planning condition requiring the footpath link to Le Perquage to be widened to 3m to allow shared cycle and pedestrian use. External Lighting Some local residents have previously expressed concern about the potential for ‘sky glow’ in an area that currently enjoys relatively dark skies at night. The development brief addresses this issue and requires that a lighting scheme be designed as an integral part of the overall scheme, which provides adequate illumination (i.e. for public safety, security and environmental enhancement), minimises ‘sky glow’ and other light pollution and is energy efficient. The application includes an indicative lighting system and layout produced by Thorn Lighting Ltd. An assessment made for the previous application suggested the proposed lighting levels and specification generally satisfy Transport and Technical Services’ guidelines. However, at that time, the Senior Electrical Engineer at TTS has some ongoing concerns regarding the height of lighting columns and the proposed use of bollard lighting. Should the application be supported, a final lighting plan would be required by planning condition, which can address outstanding concerns previously expressed by the Senior Electrical Engineer. Flooding and Surface Water Drainage The land to the south of the proposed housing site is low lying and subject to regular flooding during wet periods, which can become problematic when heavy rainfall coincides with high tides and the flap valve on the outfall is held closed, so preventing drainage to the sea. Throughout the protracted planning process, local residents have expressed concerns about the perceived potential increased risk of flooding in the area, which might occur as a result of the proposed development. It is clear that for a number of residents, these concerns are on-going and many are not convinced by or simply do not trust the work undertaken on flood risk analysis and/or the likely effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. From the outset, the planning authority has recognised the need to analyse flood risk (& how it might be affected by climate change) and to incorporate flood relief measures as part of any development application. This was first highlighted at the site feasibility stage by the former PSD (Drainage Section) and is referred to in the Island Plan. The approved Development Brief calls for the provision of a detailed report on flood risk and drainage issues by a suitably qualified independent consultant. It was a stated requirement that the flood risk report should demonstrate that the proposed development would not be susceptible to future flooding and would not result in future flooding of existing property. The applicants appointed Paul Jenkin of Peter Brett Associates (PBA), an expert in flood risk management, to undertake the work in consultation with Transport and Technical Services (Drainage). His report addresses the existing flood risk, the impacts of the development proposals and the means of mitigation and takes on board UK Climate Change Forecasts. The application would involve a loss of flood storage in Field 853 adjacent Le Perquage Stream (approx. 4,490 cu m), because of proposals to raise land levels to create an acoustic bund. However, the majority of the housing site and all the area proposed for the building of new homes is on higher land and not in an area which could be described as a ‘flood plain’ or in an area where flooding is currently a known risk. Indeed, this part of the site could best be described as one which is at low risk of flooding. There are two main proposals in the application which are intended to address the flooding and drainage issues. There is a proposal for a new surface water pumping station located to the south of the site on the car park along Route de la Haule. This is to be designed and operated by TTS (see Specification in Appendix 21) and is intended to address potential flooding, when it reaches a critical level, to protect existing properties and the existing wetland habitat. Level detectors in the station will record any rising of water level in the station sump and activate the pumps as and when appropriate, which will discharge water through a rising main to the sea. The aim will be to keep the water level range in the marsh to between 6.0m aOD and 6.6m aOD in accord with PBA recommendations. There is also a proposal to provide on-site water attenuation for the housing development, which will be designed to meet the requirements of TTS (Drainage). This will involve the creation of collection tanks (as opposed to the originally proposed off-site attenuation ponds), which will temporarily hold water and release it to the stream at a rate that is no greater than the current peak discharge rate of run-off from the existing fields to the watercourse (i.e. so that the existing situation will not deteriorate as a result of the new development). As the applicant intends to design the surface water drainage network in accordance with the standard design guide in the UK (WaterUK/WRc ‘Sewers for Adoption’ – 5th Edition), TTS(Drainage) recommend the adoption of a 30 year event for run-off attenuation purposes, rather than the 10 year event originally proposed. Paul Jenkin’s report demonstrates that the development proposals will reduce the existing risk of fluvial flooding in the area, even when the impacts of climate change are considered. It concludes that: The potential impact of the development could be mitigated by a single pump with a capacity of 0.18cumecs, which would maintain the status quo and would not provide any benefit to existing residents; The installation of two surface water pumps with a combined capacity of approximately 1.0 cumecs (1,000 litres/second), as proposed by TTS(Drainage) would increase the threshold of flooding for the existing properties to the south from 1 in 180 years to 1 in 240 years if the climate remains as it is, and from 1 in 50 years to 1 in 65 years in the climate change scenario; and Providing a third pump would increase the threshold of flooding to 1 in 90 years in the climate change scenario. (N.B. It is proposed to design the pumping station to allow for the installation of a 3rd pump, although TTS recommend that this is not installed until the impact of ‘climate change’ becomes apparent). On the basis of these findings, the pumping station will be a substantial benefit to the community, which will be constructed by the developer at no extra capital cost to the public. Paul Jenkin’s report also recommends that floor levels for the new homes are set at above 8.37 aOD at the downstream end of the housing site area and 9.01 aOD at the upstream end. This means the land that the relatively few proposed new houses on the lowest parts of the site would not be at risk of flooding during a 100 year event in the climate change scenario (I.e. what they suggest is the standard industry norm). However, they also confirm that, in fact, these levels would be above the 200 year plus climate change flood level, which exceeds the current guidance provided by the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and which has also been agreed as acceptable by local insurers. Most of the proposed house would, of course, be constructed at levels well above those quoted here. In his review of the previous application for 129 homes, the Minister gave very careful consideration to the matter of flooding and drainage and the concerns of local residents about the flood risk analysis work and the proposals for mitigation. In the event, he concluded that: (i) the consultants appointed by the applicant are suitably qualified and competent to undertake the required work and are obligated to provide expert, objective and independent advice; (ii) the techniques employed to model flood risk in the area, which make use of local rainfall data and an ‘anologue catchment area’ with its close similarities to the ‘Bel Royal Catchment’ are not defective and adequately reflect local conditions; (iii) these techniques reflect not only standard UK procedure, but are standard practice throughout the world; (iv) the proposed surface water drainage works together with certain groundworks should ensure that: the rate of water discharge from the housing site to the stream is no greater than at present; there is no substantive risk of flooding to the proposed homes; the small area of existing flood storage lost to the proposed housing development is compensated for; there would be substantially less risk of flooding to existing properties to the south of the site; and the ecological character of the southern wetland is maintained. (v) I am satisfied in principle that the proposed measures adequately address the flooding issues. There have been no new or substantial material factors raised by objectors about flooding and drainage in relation to the current application and there are, therefore, no new grounds to warrant reconsideration of the Minister’s previous stance. The current proposals for on-site attenuation and a new pumping station are supported in principle by TTS(Drainage), although details will need to be agreed and the proposals would have to be covered by legally binding planning obligation agreements. Whilst it is accepted that the marsh areas to the south will continue to flood, it is held that, if the application is approved (subject to the recommended planning conditions and obligations), there will be no substantive risk of flooding to the proposed new homes and there will be substantially less risk of flooding to existing properties to the south of the site. Implementation of SW drainage works Although the basic principles of the surface water drainage proposals for the controlled disposal of surface water from the development have been agreed with Transport and Technical Services drainage engineers, the applicant will still need to submit details for approval. This requirement will be the subject of a planning condition and will also be covered by the Building Byelaws. The detailed design work for the sw pumping station (to be undertaken by Transport and Technical Services) and its construction will be the subject of a contract with the developer. The funding of the construction work on the Pumping station and 15 year’s maintenance will be provided by the developer through a planning obligation. There would be a condition on any permit to the effect that the proposed flood mitigation measures are put in place and operational prior to the commencement of the housing development. Future Maintenance of SW Pumping Station Although the capital costs of the pumping station would be met by the developer, it would be handed over to TTS to own, manage, operate and maintain, and this could be covered by a Planning Obligation Agreement (POA). As part of the POA, the developer would be required to pay a commuted sum to Transport and Technical Services to cover the cost of both maintaining the station for a period of 15 years and replacing the pumps. Thereafter, the cost of maintenance would revert to the Public. This is typical of the arrangements usually made with the former PSD for pumping stations (N.B. The maintenance cover reflects the fact that the pumping station provides for a significant public benefit to the area and not just the development. Where the developer is the only direct beneficiary the required commuted sum would be increased to cover a period of 20-30 years). There are standard maintenance measures for TTS’ surface water pumping stations and also failsafe measures in the event of breakdown. Accordingly, there would be duty / assist pumps installed, which would minimise the effect of any pump failure. The station would be visited and checked regularly by trained TTS personnel, usually every other day, and maintenance would be carried out as and when necessary. The proposed station would also have a telemetry link to the main control centre at Bellozanne Incinerator, which is manned 24 hours a day. Various alarm signals would be built into the telemetry link, which would warn of potential problems and register at the main control centre in real time. Duty officers are on 24 hour standby and would be called out immediately in the event of a problem occurring. This leads the PBA ‘Statement on Flooding and Drainage’ to conclude that “any potential failure or maintenance requirements could therefore be adequately managed”. As explained earlier, the pumping station would reduce the risk of flooding in the area, but it could not completely remove all risk of flooding to existing properties in the future (N.B. No flood reduction scheme would ever completely eliminate flood risk). In this instance, the risk would be minimal. It would have to involve a total electrical power failure where none of the pumps can operate for a significant period of time (a rare event!) and this would have to coincide with heavy rainfall and tide-locked conditions. It should also be born in mind, however, that were this to occur, the risk of flooding existing properties would not be much more than it would be in a ‘no scheme world’, because of the attenuation measures planned for the housing development. Responsibility for Future Flooding of Property Who is held responsible for future flooding of existing properties will depend very much on the circumstances. The Solicitor General has previously given advice to the former Committee as to its potential liability in the event of such an occurrence. It would seem from that advice that the Minister could only be liable if proven to be negligent (e.g. it permits development on a site which cannot be drained to avoid flooding; or it permits development knowing there is another better method of drainage which would have avoided the flooding). All the evidence suggests that the proposed homes would be at low risk of flooding and the existing properties to the south would be at lower risk of flooding, if the application is approved and implemented. Insurance for Existing and Proposed Property Owners Although the issue of insurance with regard to flood risk for existing properties continues to be flagged up by some residents, such concerns fail to acknowledge that the risk of flooding would be reduced as a result of the development. Nor do they acknowledge that if the sw pumping station fails, it would not pose a significant additional threat to existing properties than exists at present, given the nature of the sw drainage system designed for the housing site. With regard to the proposed homes, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) currently recommends that any new properties that could be at risk of flooding should be constructed so that the floor levels are above a 1 in 200 year event, including allowance for ‘climate change’. Most of the proposed homes will be well in excess of this, or any predicted flood level. However, in its ‘Flood Risk Report’ PBA have confirmed that the proposed floor levels of the homes on the lowest part of the site are set above the 200 year plus climate change flood level. The floor levels for all the new homes, therefore, would exceed ABI guidance which has been agreed by a well known local insurance company, as follows: “I can confirm that normal terms, other than for proposer history, convictions etc that you mention, would be offered in respect of the new build residential units on the proviso that the construction and associated work is undertaken in accordance with the measures proposed in the aforementioned report i.e. the floor levels exceed those specified as minimums and the water pumping system is installed to an adequate specification. All to exceed the ABI guideline limits”. Flooding at Sandybrook and Holding Ponds up St. Peter’s Valley A number of residents are concerned that the proposed development will not prevent flooding at Sandybrook and consider that this should be resolved first before any new development is permitted. It should be borne in mind that the application site is downstream of Sandybrook and the applicants are addressing the flooding issue in and around the marsh and the potential impact from the development. The flooding at Sandybrook is a separate issue, which is not impacted on by the proposed development. It occurs in extreme conditions of heavy rainfall when an excess of water arrives at Sandybrook which cannot get through the existing culvert. There are presently no plans to carry out direct improvements at Sandybrook to prevent further flooding. However, a number of unsuccessful requests have previously been made by the former PSD for Capital Funding to construct impounding ponds up St. Peter’s Valley, in order to reduce the flow of excess water arriving at Sandybrook in such conditions. TTS drainage engineers have previously confirmed that, even if constructed, these impounding ponds would not offer any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of flooding in the marsh. The flow of water arriving at the marsh would be the same. The Location for the Pumping Station and Property Restrictions The most beneficial position for any such station is nearest to the outfall, as it only has an effect on upstream areas. If, for example, the station was located adjacent to the proposed housing, all the marsh area to the south would have to be flooded before the water level would be sufficient to trigger the station pumps. The pumps would not impact, therefore, on the floodwaters downstream. Originally, it had been proposed to site this at the bottom end of the marsh (Field 863A), but this would have required a much larger structure, similar in size to a house. More pressure and therefore more height would have been required to pump the water to sea. This alternative naturally drew opposition from those local residents whose aspects were most affected and who were worried about potential noise intrusion. It is now proposed to construct the station in the public car park to the south of the Perquage Walk on the sea-side of La Route de la Haule. Its location on public land at the west end of the car park is the optimum location in the view of the Transport and Technical Services’ Drainage Section. The pumps would be below ground and the only visible structure above ground would be the housing to accommodate the electrical control panels and telemetry monitoring for the pumps. It is proposed that this be a flat roofed structure in the NW corner of the car park measuring approximately 3.5m x 5m x 2.9m high. It would be end on to the road to reduce its visual impact and would, with its ‘clearance zone’, involve the loss of 3 or 4 existing parking spaces. The Parking Control Manager at TTS has previously indicated that the developers should pay a commuted sum of £8,000 to cover the permanent loss of 4 parking spaces and that there would be an additional charge for the loss of any spaces during construction. This can be addressed in the required planning obligation agreement. It is recognised that the design of the pumping station will need to take account of the overtopping of the sea defences in the area due to wave action. In response to the previous application the Parish Deputy raised the possibility of property restrictions affecting the site of the proposed pumping station, which, it was claimed, would prevent any above ground development. Whilst not strictly a planning matter, this prompted the Minister, in his judgement on the previous application to remark “it has yet to be satisfactorily demonstrated that the above ground building to house the control panels and other equipment associated with the pumps, can be sited in the preferred location, because of an unresolved legal covenant issue which has recently been brought to light”. In response to the current application (see Appendix 22), Property Holdings has informed the Planning Department that the land in question was acquired by the Public as part of the transfer of ‘Le Perquage’ from the Societe Jersiaise. It had acquired the land as part of a bequest, and conditions laid down in the relevant Codicil to the Will include a requirement that Le Perquage is to “be preserved as a passageway or sanctuary according to the ancient customs of the Island…”. This prompted the Treasury and Resources Minister (see Appendix 23) to decide to: Agree to sign any future planning application in relation to proposals for construction at the car park site; Inform interested parties that no above ground construction will take place on the land without the consent of Property Holdings, who will not grant consent until all legal issues have been resolved by the Public and the States Assembly has approved a variation in the legal conditions to allow construction to take place. This decision was queried by the Planning Department (see Appendix 24) and in the subsequent response from Property Services (see Appendix 25), it would appear probable that the matter can be resolved and a solution found to allow development at the preferred site. It should also be noted that there is nothing in the research undertaken to-date to indicate a problem in siting the control housing at the other end of the car park if necessary. Constructing and Operating the SW Pumping Station to Prevent Undue Noise or Vibration Nuisance to Neighbouring Property As inferred above, it is proposed to construct the SW pumping station entirely underground, with the exception of the electrical control equipment and telemetry monitoring. The station would be designed by TTS (Drainage) who would oversee its construction. TTS has advised that once the station is commissioned, noise from it should not be discernable. They have also previously advised that “noise is an inevitable consequence of nearly all construction operations, but in common with our usual practice, measures will be incorporated in the contract, with guidance from the Health Protection Department as necessary, to ensure that noise generation is kept to a minimum during construction”. This contract will also deal with other issues such as vibration, dust and vehicle movements. Maintaining the Perquage Brook and the watercourse between it and Les Marais Avenue Although TTS does not own the Perquage watercourse, it does formally maintain it, in the sense that it aims to ensure a free flow of water is maintained. Accordingly, TTS will continue to regularly inspect the brook and the outfall for the foreseeable future. However, responsibility for maintaining the fabric of the watercourse (e.g. banks, channel) rests with the land owners. It has been established by the States of Jersey Law Officers that the other watercourse, which runs to Les Marais Avenue is the responsibility of the field owners immediately to the north. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to require the developer to arrange for that part of the watercourse which it owns and the ditches which feed it to be cleaned out as part of the POA. In any event, the Minster for Transport and Technical Services has the power under Article 2 of the Drainage (Jersey) Law, 1962 to maintain a watercourse should it so desire. Furthermore, under Article 5, it can require the owner of the water course to undertake proper maintenance. Attenuation Ponds The initial plans for the current application included two attenuation ponds in Fields 854 and 862A to the south of the housing site, with gravity connections to the water course using throttle pipes to control the flow. This conflicted with the submitted statement on flooding and drainage, which refers to on-site surface water storage and attenuation using a propriety system called “Stormcell”. Local residents have queried this anomaly, raised concerns about the hazards to children of creating areas of deep open water close to the proposed housing development and pointed out the potential impracticality of such solutions for water attenuation. These are all valid concerns, even though it is accepted that such features can add to the ecological and aesthetic qualities of the existing wetland area. In a recent exchange of e-mails with this Department, TTS(Drainage) has cast doubts on the likely effectiveness of the ponds due to potential ground water infiltration, susceptibility to flooding and subsequent problems if the intended capacity is not available when they are called upon to serve their drainage purpose. In the event, the attenuation ponds have been omitted from the amended application drawings and the applicant has reverted to proposing two underground attenuation tanks in the south western corner of the housing site. Foul Drainage System Some residents are concerned that the local sewerage system will not be able to cope with the increased load from this development and others in the area (notably L’Hermitage development) and fear an increased incidence of raw sewage spills that have occurred in the marsh. The foul flow from the L’Hermitage development will discharge into the system feeding Beaumont Pumping Station. However, the flow from the application site in question would be pumped into the gravity system leading from First Tower, downstream of the Beaumont Station. In its ‘Statement on Flooding and Drainage’, PBA confirm that this system “has adequate capacity to cater for the additional flows”. The previous spillage problems occurred because the two systems were linked in such a way as to enable the build up of water level in the gravity system along the sea front to First Tower, resulting in ‘back flow’ under certain circumstances into the Beaumont System. This, combined with the ingress of surface water into the Beaumont System, resulted in the previous sewage spills during extreme rainfall. TTS(Drainage) has previously confirmed that: It has carried out remedial works (e.g. removal of surface water from the Beaumont System and tide flaps at Beaumont outfall), which will prevent ‘back flow’ between the First Tower and Beaumont systems; There is now sufficient capacity in the Beaumont foul system to take additional flows from the proposed housing developments in the west of the Island; The discharge from the application site into the First Tower gravity system will not have any detrimental effect on the Beaumont system or the marsh. TTS has also confirmed that if an unacceptably high surcharge level occurred in the main south coast sewer during extreme conditions, the pumping station would be inhibited from pumping. Any localised flow from the development that discharged to the pumping station during the inhibited period would then be directed to the station’s emergency storage sump (with 24 hour capacity) until the level had dropped in the main sewer, and the pump was reactivated. The future management, operation and maintenance of the foul pumping station would be the responsibility of TTS, who would be gifted the station by the applicant under a clause of the POA. The applicant would also have to provide a commuted sum for maintenance and pump replacement. TTS(Drainage) has previously confirmed that the basic principles for the proposed disposal of foul water from the proposed development are as it has agreed with the applicant. Foul drainage was not cited by the Minister as grounds for refusing the previous application and there have been no material changes in circumstance and no new factors brought to light which would warrant a different stance on this issue. However, on a point of detail, the submitted plan of the proposed foul drainage scheme (Plan BP) shows the foul rising main running through the garden of the house known as “Brookside” on Route de la Haule. TTS has confirmed that this would be likely to be laid along Le Perquage Walk, and accordingly, this matter could be made subject to a planning condition. Manhole Covers Lifting at Le Marais Avenue A few residents of Les Marais Avenue have reiterated their concerns that they have experienced problems with rising foul manhole covers after periods of heavy rain and are seeking assurances that the proposed development will not worsen the situation. These concerns were raised at the time of the previous application and TTS(Drainage) were asked to comment. They were aware that problems had occurred in Les Marais Avenue and explained that “subsequent investigations of past events have determined that ordinarily, the system has the capacity to copy with these heavy rainfall events, but that, while infrequent, exceptionally high surcharges tend to occur in this area when specific problems are experienced with the foul sewerage system along the south coast”. TTS advised that measures had been taken to address the particular problems in Le Marais Avenue, which entailed fitting bolt-down covers to the affected manholes, to prevent them lifting should similar problems occur in future. TTS have made it clear that the operational regime adopted for foul sewerage in association with the current application would ensure that flow from the development would not have any detrimental effect on the existing problem at Le Marais Avenue. Other detailed queries on drainage Local residents have previously raised a number of other specific queries in relation to drainage and flooding, some of which have been reiterated. These queries were forwarded to TTS drainage engineers for comment (see Appendix 26) and have been addressed comprehensively (see Appendix 27). Waste Management and Imported Fill The floor levels recommended by the PBA ‘Flood Risk and Drainage Issues Report’, referred to earlier, and the proposals to create an acoustic berm in Field 853 adjacent to Le Perquage, will necessitate a significant amount of fill for the lower parts of the proposed housing site. Initially, for the original application, the intention was to import some 48,900m³ of fill material from several other development sites. This would have been comparable with the 50,000m³ of fill proposed at the controversial ‘Trinity Land Fill Site’ and would have required in the region of 8,800 lorry loads. Concerns about the nature and scale of those proposals for importing fill, led the former Environment and Public Services Committee to conclude that the proposals were wholly unacceptable. This prompted the applicants to revise their plans, by avoiding the development of homes on much of the lower ground and adopting a “cut and fill” approach across the site, essentially involving scraping material from the higher parts of the site and using it to raise the lower parts. PBA’s previous ‘Waste Management Report’ concluded that the required levels could be achieved by balancing the existing ground material on the site. As such, there would effectively be no need to import fill material for general earthworks. Indeed, it would only have been necessary to bring in fill (approx 6605m³) for engineering purposes as is normal for all housing developments (e.g. slab construction and strip footing for houses and sub-base materials for roads, footways, car parking and drainage trenches). Unfortunately, the revised ‘Waste Management Report’ for the current application includes only a fairly crude approximation of the ‘cut and fill’ material required and is suggesting a need to import 11,929 cu m of land fill material (largely top soil). The applicants have been advised that this is not acceptable and that it is expected that any detailed design work will effectively balance out the ‘cut and fill’ material and ideally achieve zero difference. This has been accepted by the applicants and any permit would be conditional upon the submission of detailed figures and drawings which will demonstrate more accurately how equal ratios of cut and fill materials will be achieved. The general ‘cut and fill’ exercise and any material brought on site will be governed by the terms of the ‘Waste Management Report’ (in relation to environmental controls etc) and any permit would also be conditioned accordingly. Social Problems It is accepted that public safety and its perception is a material planning consideration that needs to be properly addressed. Fear of crime and antisocial behaviour are real concerns for local residents, as they are for the Island community as a whole, and can give rise to genuine anxieties. In relation to this, some local residents are continuing to maintain that the proposed development will give rise to social problems and anti-social behaviour, because of its size, the large number of people and teenagers who will live in it and the alleged cramped conditions in which they will live. They cite as examples existing problems caused by youths around Sandybrook Nursing Home and Le Perquage Walk. This issue was particular prominent among the objections associated with the previous application when some residents made comparisons with the failed estates of the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, it was also suggested that to avoid such problems no estate should be greater than about 45 homes (N.B. a view that was alleged to be held by persons and bodies involved in the eradication of poverty programme). It is likely that the reduction in the size of the current application (-27 homes) will have had an impact on the level of objection in relation to this issue, as will the fact that the Minister did not consider this to be a suitable reason for refusing the previous application. Once again, the objectors have offered no substantive objective evidence to support their assertions, to suggest that young people who would grow up in the development would engage in anti-social behaviour, or to counter the argument that a development of affordable homes will go a considerable way to solving social problems. Interestingly, reports from the ‘Coordinating Committee for the Eradication of Poverty’ emphasise the important role of providing adequate housing in overcoming problems of poverty and hardship and other social problems, which can lead to under achievement at school, social dysfunction and/or crime. Indeed, its report on ‘Housing and Poverty in Jersey’ refers to adequate (i.e. affordable and suitable) housing as a basic human right and promotes significantly increasing the supply of homes, including the rezoning of green field sites. In support of this, it suggests increased housing density on brown field sites (e.g. previously developed land in town) can lead to social problems. It also points to anecdotal evidence of increasing numbers of young people leaving the Island in order to be able to afford to become owner-occupiers. It could be argued that the proposed development will play an important part in reducing social problems in the Island and promoting social well-being, by providing: · affordable family homes with adequate internal living space, garden space and privacy; · a reasonable quality, healthy, comfortable and attractive environment (an environment where people can feel they belong); · a safe environment that takes account of ‘Secured by Design’ / crime prevention principles; · social facilities including: children’s and teenagers’ play/recreation areas, a community building and a large public amenity area; · homes on a site that is accessible to certain local facilities, public transport and the main cycle route to town. Comparisons made with failed estates of the 1960’s and early 70’s do not stand scrutiny. There are various examples in Jersey, but these bear no comparison to what is being proposed. One such example is the former Elysee Estate. The social problems associated with that estate stemmed principally from a combination of generally poor standard accommodation, a poor quality external environment, a very large number homes (185) comprised solely of States rental units crammed in at high density (100 hra), social exclusion and a paucity of amenity provision. The fear of crime and anti-social behaviour by young people expressed by local residents is an increasingly commonly held view throughout the Island and young people often get labelled as trouble makers. In reality, most young people are generally law abiding and it is a minority whose behaviour causes problems. The reasons for this are no doubt complex and might include factors such as low income poor housing, a natural tendency to be hyperactive, poor parental supervision etc. Many of these problems and their causes will need to be addressed on an Island-wide basis. However, there seems no reason to suppose that young people living in the proposed development will be especially disposed to undue anti-social behaviour. Of course, young people will always ‘hang around’ in groups, but the situation in this instance will be helped by a housing environment which meets recognised principles of good design, specifically addresses issues of crime prevention and provides recreational opportunities for young people, in addition to the relative proximity of the site to town. Implications for Road Traffic Traffic remains one of the main concerns of local residents. They are concerned that the proposed development, combined with other recently approved developments in the west of the Island (approx. 1100 homes since start 2005), will increase traffic along the Valley Road (which they claim is already overloaded) to unreasonable / unacceptable levels. Some have estimated that the development will lead to a potential increase in peak hour traffic of anything between 150 and 300 commuter vehicles (N.B. Figures which are over-simplistic and grossly exaggerated). Many residents point to the problems associated with any increase in traffic, including: greater congestion; more delays; increased noise and pollution; obstruction of emergency vehicles; increased difficulties in access and egress to and from properties and roads along the Valley Road; and increased risks of accidents. When inviting the application, having considered the earlier scheme for 150 homes, the former Planning Sub-Committee did have serious concerns about the increase in traffic which would occur. However, it also recognised that this is part of a wider problem facing the Island, given that most of Jersey’s main road systems have little spare capacity. At a general level, especially if the number of new homes on the Island is to increase, it is necessary to pursue and implement effective strategic sustainable transport policies on an Island-wide basis, so as to reduce traffic generation rates. It is to this end, among others, that the former Environment and Public Services Committee was instrumental in formulating the ‘Sustainable Travel and Transport Plan’ (July 2005) and, more recently, the Minister for Transport and Technical Services published an ‘Integrated Travel and Transport Plan for Jersey’ for public consultation. One of the targets of this latter plan is to reduce normal peak hour traffic flows by 15% (i.e. in line with the reduced flows currently occurring during school holidays). In addressing the previous application, the Minister accepted that traffic was part of a wider problem that had to be addressed by effective strategic sustainable transport policies. However, he also highlighted the importance of considering the impact of traffic locally. In the event, he concluded that the previously proposed development of 129 homes would have led to unacceptable problems of traffic generation. Of course, the current application and other recently approved developments in the west of the Island, will introduce a significant amount of traffic onto the Valley Road. In common with the previous applications, a ‘transport assessment’ involving traffic modelling has been carried out by PBA to help assess the likely impact. The road itself does have significant spare theoretical capacity. Current traffic flows of 232 and 690 vehicles travelling northbound and southbound respectively in the AM peak hour compares very favourably with the design capacity of 1,200 vehicles per hour in each direction for roads of this type. Consequently, the critical aspect of the assessment relates to the junctions further east along La Route de St. Aubin at both ends of Rue du Galet, where the traffic impact would be greatest. It could be argued, with regard to general traffic considerations that, as the land has already been deemed suitable per se for housing purposes and access is onto a Class A distributor road, it is not reasonable to inhibit otherwise sensible and desirable development simply because the States / highway authority has not acted to sufficiently improve the efficiency of the road network (i.e. either through road improvements and/or the implementation of a successful sustainable transport strategy). Taking this theme further and on the basis of their assessment, PBA conclude that the additional traffic impact of the proposed development of 102 homes will be “negligible” compared to a theoretical development of 97 homes (as indicated in the Island Plan) and will not result in additional congestion and queuing. They also conclude that: Vehicular trip generation out from the proposed development in the AM peak hour (08.00 – 09.00) is likely to be around 77 trips, as agreed with TTS (compared with 73 trips for a theoretical scheme of 97 homes); Although the junction at the south end of Rue du Galet is currently operating at capacity during the AM peak period and close to capacity during the PM peak period, the proposals will result in little additional queuing; Although the junction at the north end of Rue du Galet is operating close to capacity during the AM and PM peak periods, the proposals will result in minimal additional queuing; The level of vehicular trip rate is likely to reduce as the demographics and travel patterns of the development change, due to the sites proximity to public transport and cycle and walking networks; The development provides some transport benefits in the form of footpaths and bus stop facilities, which offer feasible alternatives to car use; “Any negative traffic impact that may occur will be offset against potential net benefits to the wider area, the Island’s need for housing and the potential to build upon the sustainable transport opportunities that are prevalent in this location.” Transport and Technical Services has previously advised that a development of 140 homes, as proposed in the original application, should not be accepted on traffic impact grounds. However, no such advice has been given in respect of the previous scheme for 129 homes, or the current scheme for 102 homes. In its responses to the transport assessment (see Appendices 10 and 11), the Transport and Technical Services Department generally accepts that the difference in traffic impact from the current application would be negligible compared to the impact from a scheme of 97 homes. However, it has also taken into account the likely traffic generation from other sites approved in the west of the Island over the last 2 years. It generally concludes that the St. Peter’s Valley road network can accommodate the projected increase in trips during off-peak times. However, it suggests that in peak hours the increases in queuing at the junctions at the northern and southern ends of Rue du Galet would be “very significant”. That said, it has previously argued that potential increases in traffic are likely to result in longer peak periods, rather than noticeably more congestion in the present peak periods. Whilst recognising that any reduction in the number of homes will contribute to reducing the potential increase in traffic congestion, TTS continues to emphasise the importance of encouraging more sustainable forms of transport than the private car and reiterates the arguments in favour of the site in this respect (e.g. the proximity of the school, other facilities, bus routes and cycle routes). As a consequence, it would not be in favour of a further reduction in the size of the proposed development, if it meant additional housing having to be provided on less suitable sites elsewhere. Having regard to the above and in recognition of the lack of spare capacity on the existing bus routes along the Valley Road and the absence of other means of mitigation, TTS has previously recommended that the developer provides “kick-start” funding for two additional peak hour buses (potentially the equivalent of 60 car trips) over a five year period. In the light of the above and on balance, it is considered that it would be unreasonable to continue to refuse the current application on traffic grounds, particularly given: the site has been zoned for Category A homes; the value of the proposed homes to the Island community; the transport benefits of locating homes in this location, on a major Class A road and close to main bus routes, a local school, the main cycle route to town and other facilities (allowing opportunities for more sustainable forms of transport); the opportunities and proposals to reduce traffic Island-wide through strategic sustainable transport planning; the need to use precious land resources efficiently; the significant reduction in the number of homes planned for the site (i.e. a 32% reduction in the number of homes originally proposed and a 21% reduction from the previous application); the relative size of the potential traffic generation from the site, compared to the whole catchment area of the Valley Road and the recent developments in the west of the Island; the basic inequity of penalising the current application on traffic generation grounds and not any of the other developments recently approved in the locality and elsewhere in the west of the Island (many of which will, out of necessity, be more dependent on the private car); the negligible difference in terms of traffic generation and impact between the current proposed scheme for 102 homes and a theoretic scheme for 97 homes (as indicated in the Island Plan); the further, albeit small, reduction in traffic generation that will arise as a result of the amended plans, which propose replacing 5 family homes with 5 sheltered/lifetime homes; the road improvements and other measures proposed as part of the application, for the benefit of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users; the opportunities to provide ‘kick-start’ funding (a substantial financial contribution) for additional peak hour bus services through planning obligations; and the potential need to replace this site, if the application is refused, with a site elsewhere, which would further delay the provision of homes and may necessitate use of a less favourable location from a sustainable transport perspective. N.B. An agreement was reached between a former Parish Deputy and the former PSD to undertake a separate “holistic review” of the need for pedestrian crossings of various types linked to speed-limit controls along the Valley Road (i.e. extending from Bel Royal Corner to the junctions with Sandybrook Lane and Rue de la Blanche Pierre). It is understood that this review will be in connection with an initiative to provide safer routes to Bel Royal School and would be conducted as soon as resources are available. Traffic Impact on Rue Craslin A number of residents remain concerned that the development will significantly increase traffic in Rue du Craslin (Sandybrook Lane and Rue du Moulin). This is already a busy and potentially dangerous road, which is used as a rat-run during peak traffic periods. Furthermore, given the existing problems and the level of concern, no doubt a case can be made why the Highway Authority (the Parish of St. Peter) should undertake a traffic study, in consultation with local residents. The objectives of such a study could be to achieve a safer environment with less through traffic, whilst maintaining adequate accessibility to local properties. However, the PBA ‘Traffic Assessment’ concludes (based on predicted traffic distribution) that there is unlikely to be any significant impact on Rue du Craslin, or any other minor roads in the area. It considers that the majority of the site generated traffic would utilise St. Peter’s Valley to access St. Helier and vice versa during peak hours. It should also be born in mind that north and west bound traffic will have a number of routes available other than Rue du Craslin (e.g. Le Mont Fallu, further up the Valley Road, provides another alternative for those travelling west to the Airport or Les Quennevais. TTS has also previously concluded in response to the earlier application for 129 homes that the small traffic increases quantified in the ‘Traffic Assessment’ “should not be noticeable”. Should a bus stop and retail unit be included within the development? This has been recommended by Health Protection to promote sustainable transport and minimise the need for short car journeys. The scheme would provide easy access to the bus routes along the St. Peter’s Valley Road and planning obligation agreements could be used to fund the provision of bus shelters on inbound and outbound lanes to and from town. As alluded to above, it is also proposed to require the developer to fund two additional buses at peak times. This should all serve to promote sustainable transport in any event. The provision of a retail unit would give rise to viability issues, but, in any event, it is not a requirement of the development brief and cannot reasonably be required at this late stage in the planning process. Vehicular Entrance/Exit and Associated Works The siting and arrangement of the proposed vehicle entry exit point (including the associated road widening works, the provision of a pavement extension to Rue de la Blanche Pierre, the installation of a pedestrian crossing refuge and visibility splays) is generally in accordance with TTS’ requirements. These required road improvements are primarily in the interests of pedestrian safety. There would be a need for more detailed drawings showing acceptable vertical and horizontal road alignments and including a slight amendment to the siting of the proposed pedestrian refuge and provision for bus shelters and stops for east- and west-bound traffic. These matters could be dealt with by conditions. Originally, PSD’s optimum location for the access was further to the north west. However, in response to resident’s concerns, the applicants have acquired land to the east, which has enabled them to move the junction further from the Rue de La Blanche Pierre junction and allowed for the diversion and incorporation of the existing track. The new footpath and crossing facilities (as modified) would be a major benefit to pedestrian movement and highway safety. Footpath link to Sandybrook Lane Some residents have previously expressed concerns that the drive exit from Le Perquage Flats is already dangerous, because of the high volume and speed of traffic using the Valley Road and exiting down Sandybrook Lane. They contended that children suddenly appearing at the exit on bikes or on foot will add to the hazards. Since then, the Sandybrook Lane junction has been subject to road amendments to reduce traffic speeds and improve safety. TTS traffic engineers consider that the footpath link to Sandybrook Lane (as requested in the development brief), will improve the situation for school children and pedestrians wishing to travel from Sandybrook to the local school or other destinations to the east. They consider this should be an essential part of the design and highlight the omission of the footpath from the submitted application. However, this footpath link has since been reintroduced as part of the revised plans. Any forthcoming permit would include a condition for the installation of “chicane” barriers on the path at the drive exit and where it meets St. Peter’s Valley Road. Parking Provision Satisfactory provision for parking is an essential requirement in informing the design process for any new housing development. From the outset, former Committees have sought to encourage designs and layouts on the sites zoned in the Island Plan, which offer opportunities for reduced parking provision. This approach has been based, in part, on recognition of the need to discourage car dependency, to avoid the unnecessarily large amount of valuable land given over to vehicle parking, and to discourage car-dominated housing developments. The application site is well suited to this approach given the relative proximity to town and the accessibility to public transport corridors, the main cycle route to town and various community facilities. The development brief allows for reduced parking provision (i.e. 2 spaces per dwelling plus visitor spaces @ 1 per 5 homes), where a significant element of the space provided is in the form of flexible communal parking. Otherwise, it was anticipated that provision would be made on the basis of 3 spaces per 3-bed home, plus 1 visitor space per 3 homes. The reduced parking approach was adopted for all the previous applications and presented few difficulties in achieving adequate parking space provision. However, the original drawings for the current application looked to retain the reduced parking requirements, whilst introducing a new parking arrangement with completely dedicated spaces (often in a tandem arrangement) and no opportunities for meaningful communal parking. The result was a completely inadequate parking provision, and this was picked up on by a number of residents. The revised layout and parking arrangement drawings for the current application have effectively addressed these inadequacies. The applicants have now opted for varying degrees of communal and dedicated parking. Each family house now has 1, 2 or 3 dedicated spaces and a communal space, whilst the sheltered / lifetime units have one dedicated space. Visitor parking is provided on the basis of 1 space per 5 homes. The total proposed parking provision for the housing scheme (excluding the 25 spaces to serve the amenity area and community hall) is now 304 spaces, comprising 271 residents’ spaces and 33 visitor spaces. This compares with the possible minimum requirement of 225 for a scheme of this size and a potential requirement (if published standards were to be applied) of 355 spaces. It is considered that the revised scheme essentially complies with the requirements of the development brief both in total numbers, and in terms of the distribution of spaces serving each separate group of homes (although it is recognised that ‘parking zone no.5’ does rely, in part, on some relatively remote parking) . Parking Provision and Published Guidelines A few residents have questioned why parking provision is not in accordance with the current published parking guidelines set out in Planning Policy Note No.3. These guidelines were approved in 1988 and their usefulness as a guide to what might be regarded as acceptable space provision in new housing developments has been increasingly called into question over the years. They were formulated when the States was effectively operating a ‘car accommodation’ transport strategy and the general desire was to meet the maximum potential demands of car users. As a consequence, these guidelines are demanding and have: had a significant influence on the way people travel; resulted in a very large amount of space being given over to vehicle parking in new developments; and often led to the creation of car-dominated housing environments. In more recent times there has been a general recognition that the demand for car travel cannot continue to be absorbed by the Island’s urban fabric and highway infrastructure and is essentially unsustainable. In this regard, parking standards have a role to play. If spaces continue to be provided in accord with the 1988 guidelines, people will continue to acquire cars to put in them and the growth of car ownership and usage becomes self-fulfilling. When the current Island Plan was approved in 2002, it heralded a new approach to development planning, which is underpinned by the principles of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainable transport’. Island Plan Policy TT26 outlines the intention to review parking standards in accordance with these principles and suggests this may lead to the identification of maximum, rather than minimum parking requirements. Following adoption of the Plan, work commenced on producing new supplementary guidance covering the design of new homes, including residential parking. Early drafts were used to inform the development brief process for housing sites zoned in the Island Plan, including the site in question. All these sites were zoned on the understanding that their development would be in accordance with an approved development brief. The development brief for the application site was finalised and approved after significant public consultation and makes it clear that the former Committee “will support and encourage schemes which demonstrate an innovative and sustainable approach to parking provision…an approach that engenders an effective use of land, that encourages the use of sustainable forms of transport and that reduces reliance on the private car, where practicable”. Its specific parking requirements have essentially been complied with. Garages Health Protection has previously recommended that garages be provided for each home for the storage of household possessions and some residents remain of the view that there is a lack of garage provision. As alluded to above, the parking space provision essentially complies with the parking requirements in the development brief, which do not necessitate the provision of garages. However, where the applicant decides not to provide garages for family homes, the brief requires the provision of storage sheds, for the storage of bicycles and other domestic paraphernalia. This matter was touched on by the Minister in his report on the previous application, where he states that ideally applicants should aim to provide a garage for every family home. However, it is clearly difficult to dictate on this matter, being so late in a protracted planning process and contrary to the advice previously given. In the event, 58 (57%) of the proposed homes in the current application would have garages, compared to 30 with garages and car ports (23%) in the previous application. In addition, it is proposed that every house without a garage be provided with a garden shed measuring 4.0m². A condition attached to any permit would be necessary to ensure that these are of a robust block-built construction. In the circumstances, this would appear to offer a reasonable approach. Resolving the Beaumont / Bel Royal Traffic Problem Following concerns expressed by local residents, the Development Brief was amended to require that the development as a whole will not prejudice the possibility of future road building options through the marsh for the relief of traffic congestion at Beaumont / Bel Royal. The resident in question believes this “existing problem” should be resolved first, before any new development is agreed. Whilst the current application would not unduly constrain road building in the future, it should be borne in mind that engineering solutions to the “Beaumont problem” are no longer favoured as the way forward. Apart from the expense, there are sustainability issues. There are plenty of examples elsewhere of where increases in capacity arising from new road building are simply taken up by increased vehicular trips. It is also worth pointing out that proposals to improve the traffic situation at Beaumont go back at least as far as 1974 (The Jersey Transport Study) and nothing significant has ever been done, by successive States highway authorities. Education (Secondary and Primary) The inadequate capacity of Bel Royal Primary School and Les Quennevais Secondary School was one of the 5 reasons for refusing the previous application. Some local residents remain concerned that this matter has not been resolved and consider that the current application should also be refused because it would have a similar impact in terms of pupil generation. Advice from the Education Department on this matter has varied throughout the protracted application process. In assessing the first application for 140 homes, the Education Department was of the view that the schools in question would both be able to accommodate the likely generation of extra children from the development seeking entry to them. However, in responding to the previous application for 129 homes it advised that circumstances had changed, that there were capacity problems with both schools and that they would be unable to accommodate the extra demand from new pupils that would have been generated (i.e. 42 children “new” to Bel Royal School and 18 “new” to Les Quennevais School). The Education Department has commented on the original scheme for the current application and estimated the expected child yield would be approximately 152 children under the age of 16. Of these, it estimates 46 would be pre-school age, 66 primary school age and 41 secondary school age. The Department expected the proposed development to yield around 36 “new” children seeking entry to Bel Royal School and 16 “new” children seeking entry to Les Quennevais School. The number of pupils currently at Bel Royal School is just over the planned maximum of 175 pupils, but there are 14 places available in specific year groups. However, First Tower School has a current capacity for a further 27 children. The number of pupils currently at Les Quennevais School is also in excess of its planned capacity of 750 pupils, but there are 7 places available in specific year groups and there is ample spare capacity in the 11-16 States’ schools in the town area at Haute Vallee and Grainville. Based on demographic trends, the Education Department has indicated that “the two primary schools, Bel Royal and First Tower, may, depending on the age distribution of the children, be able to accommodate all the extra children seeking entry” (i.e. as a result of the proposed development). It has also indicated that by 2011, the number of children seeking entry to Bel Royal School may have reduced sufficiently to allow it to accommodate all the extra children seeking entry as a result of the development (i.e. say 2 years after any approved development is completed). In the short term, from 2009 to 2011, if the application is approved and completed, it could result in say 22 children travelling to First Tower or the town area. It is likely that Les Quennevais School will remain at capacity up in the foreseeable future and the school is unlikely to be able to accommodate all the 16 extra pupils that would be seeking entry to the school as a result of the proposed development “unless there is intervention”. In effect, it would mean that up to 16 children (i.e. between 9 and 16 children) of secondary school age in the present Les Quennevais School catchment area would have to take up a place in Haute Vallee or Grainville Schools. All the figures referred to above take no account of the revised plans which introduce 5 sheltered / lifetime homes at the expense of family homes. This will reduce the number of school aged children generated by the proposed development by a small amount. However, in the general scheme of things, the numbers of children who won’t have their first choice of school are not great and the difference in the numbers between a scheme of 102 homes and a theoretical scheme of 97 homes (favoured by local political representatives) is minimal. In the latter scenario there would be an estimated 32 children “new” to Bel Royal School (instead of 36) and 14 children “new” to Les Quennevais School (instead of 16). Before reaching conclusions on the education issue, it is also important to recognise the value of the proposed homes to the Island community both now and over the next 100 years or so; the obvious benefits of locating family homes within walking distance of a primary school; the temporary nature of the school capacity situation; the likely future diminution in primary school rolls reflecting changes in population structure; and the other means available to the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture for ensuring full-time education for school aged children (e.g. altering school catchment areas). On balance, it is considered that these factors outweigh the short term capacity issues described above. Education and Traffic Implications Clearly, the Minister must have regard to the potential traffic implications/ effect on traffic flow of children having to travel east for their education as a consequence of the development. The numbers outlined above would suggest the traffic implications relating to school capacity and the current application would not appear to be particularly significant. Furthermore, there would be minimal difference between the traffic impact of the current application and that of a theoretical scheme for 97 homes, which would involve 2 less secondary school children travelling to Haute Vallee School and 4 less primary school children travelling to First Tower or beyond. There is presently sufficient capacity in the Haute Vallee school bus from St. John and St. Lawrence to accommodate 9-16 additional pupils and the route could be amended for the purpose to pick up children for outside Bel Royal primary school if needs be. The 22 primary school children travelling to First Tower or beyond could either be driven by parents (some of whom would do this on their way to work and/or to drop off children at other secondary schools) or make use of the public bus service (N.B. there is a lollipop lady at First Tower to help school children cross the road). In two years time there may be sufficient extra capacity on the scheduled bus route to accommodate all these pupils. However, as alluded to earlier, TTS has recommended that the developer provides “kick start” money to fund two additional peak hour scheduled buses on the St. Peter’s Valley route for 5 years. If necessary, TTS could also consider the option of extending the existing relief bus service from Millbrook to Bel Royal. In the light of the above, it is held that both the current school capacity situation and the likely traffic implications are insufficient to warrant refusal of the application. Nursery Education It is estimated that the proposed scheme might yield 46 pre-school age children. At the recent public meeting, one local resident drew attention to the fact that St. Lawrence School nursery is currently full and that Bel Royal School nursery has few places available. She alluded to a statement made by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture to the effect that all young children of three years to school age are entitled to nursery school provision and argued that adequate provision should be available locally before the proposed development can take place. The Education Department was asked to respond and has confirmed that: the estimated 46 pre-school age children generated by the application, covers all children from birth to 4 years old; at any one time, only a quarter of these children would be eligible for a nursery place (i.e. 11 or 12 children); the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture has mentioned an ‘entitlement’, but has also stated that “this would be achieved by investing in private sector provision to complement our nursery classes provided in schools”; the intention is to work with the private sector to increase the provision of nursery places and not necessarily extend existing States Nursery provision. The Education Department concludes that the number of pre-school children yielded by the development has “no effective impact on the proposal”. Potential Noise Nuisance from Jersey Steel This is one of the most difficult issues to arise in relation to the application site and has consumed a great deal of time and resources. The concern is that proposed homes would be exposed to unacceptable noise from Jersey Steel and also that this would lead to future noise complaints resulting in Health Protection having to take action against the company. Jersey Steel is a long established firm which employs around 60 people and is the principle supplier of steel for the local construction industry. It is operational only during the daytime and the normal working hours are: · 8am – 4.30pm weekdays (or 6.30pm when working overtime as has been required for 60-70% of the days in the last 3 years); and · 8am – 1pm Saturdays (or 3pm when working overtime). There have been no complaints about noise emanating from Jersey Steel in recent years, since it changed its hours of operation. The noise issue was first brought to light some 3 weeks after the land had been zoned for housing purposes by Health Protection, who had previously not raised the matter when consulted during the site feasibility stage. It was later agreed, in consultation with Health Protection, that the applicants should appoint suitably qualified consultants to carry out a substantive noise study, in accordance with a specification provided by Health Protection. Not satisfied with the original noise study based on general average noise levels (LAeq), Health Protection called for a second study based on maximum noise levels (LAMax). At the time of the previous application for 129 homes, Health Protection was still not satisfied with the methodology and findings of the noise studies. It remained concerned about the close proximity of proposed homes to Jersey Steel and the resultant exposure to noise, and the likelihood that this would result in future noise complaints, with all the potential implications this would have both for it as a regulator and for Jersey Steel’s operation. The previous application for 129 homes (as revised), proposed that the homes be set back from Jersey Steel, behind acoustic bunds (3.5m and 3m above ground level outside Jersey Steel) and the applicants argued that this complied with the UK planning guidance on noise within PPG24, BS4142 and BS8233 and with Health Protection’s required specification. Health Protection continued to question the methodology of the applicant’s noise consultants and the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed and an impasse was reached. In an attempt to find a solution to the problem, Health Protection finally decided to appoint its own noise consultants… ‘Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre’ (INVC). It was INVC who first recommended the installation of automatic high speed roller shutter doors on the eastern entrance of the Jersey Steel factory for noise mitigation purposes. Health Protection subsequently confirmed that this suggested mitigation aligned with the filling of holes in the structural façade of the Jersey Steel building nearest the proposed development “will provide the necessary acoustic reassurance to overcome the outstanding concerns of noise nuisance”. However, they also stated that “what has not been considered is any occupational problem within the Jersey Steel’s premises from noise and potential heat build-up in Summer”. Whilst not accepting Health Protection’s criticism of its on-site mitigation proposals, the applicant agreed to consider the incorporation of new roller shutter doors on the basis that Jersey Steel provides the relevant consent. In view of all the circumstances, this led this Department to conclude that the noise mitigation measures proposed by the applicant (both on and off site) represent a reasonable and proportional response, and that the roller shutter doors could be made the subject of a Planning Obligation Agreement. In his review of the previous application, the Minister took a different stance. He was particularly conscious of: · Jersey Steel’s concerns about the potential curtailment of its activities (if it is served with a noise nuisance order in response to future complaints from residents); · The fact that Jersey Steel had not been party to any discussions on the roller shutter doors at that time; and · The potential consequential operational and occupational problems which remained to be addressed and resolved. In the event, therefore, he concluded that “the proposed solutions to the noise impact issue have not been satisfactorily proven and, in particular, there are outstanding doubts as to whether the off-site mitigation measures can be implemented”. Noise impact consequently formed one of the Minister’s reasons for refusing the previous application, based on: the likelihood of the proposed housing being subject to unacceptable noise nuisance; and the failure of the applicants to demonstrate their ability to make adequate provision for noise mitigation. Like the previous scheme, the current application is supported by two noise assessment reports prepared by PBA, dealing with average noise levels (LAeq) and maximum noise levels (LAmax). The only noise mitigation shown on the submitted plans is in the form of an on-site acoustic berm adjacent Le Perquage. Once again, PBA and the applicants claimed that the proposals comply with Health Protection’s original noise specification and with UK planning guidance. In response to the current application (see Appendix 28), Jersey Steel continued to object that the proposed homes are too close and will lead to complaints from residents over noise from its fabrication activities. It has appointed its own noise consultants (Atkins) to review the noise assessment reports. They concluded, among other things, that: the noise surveys and modelling are defective; the proposed noise bund will be of little benefit; the noise criterion used of 5dB above background noise (as required by Health Protection) is not sufficient to guarantee preventing complaints; Jersey Steel has “every justification to resist the application in its current form, as it represents a real risk to the on-going operation of their business site”. In its initial response to the current application (see Appendix 13), Health Protection pointed out, among other things, that: It has not agreed PBA’s assessment methodology; Its views are broadly in line with those of Atkins; The applicant has failed to address the noise issue satisfactorily; The proposed mitigation measures are unlikely to negate future complaints about noise; and that In the light of the above, the site is not suitable for domestic dwellings. After various exchanges with Health Protection in an attempt to resolve the impasse, a meeting was held with all the relevant parties. The outcome of that meeting was an agreement that PBA would be appointed to study the effectiveness of possible noise mitigation measures. The objective was to provide evidence which would allow Health Protection to agree to a set of mitigation measures that are reasonable and proportionate and, in so doing, provide Jersey Steel with the comfort they are looking for. The subsequent PBA study modelled 9 mitigation options, involving different combinations of the following mitigation measures; An on-site acoustic berm (either 4.5 or 5m high), with or without a 1.8m close-boarded fence on top; A new close-boarded boundary fence to Jersey Steel; A rapid action roller shutter door (open and closed) at the eastern entrance of the Jersey Steel factory; A lean-to over the entrance door at the eastern end of Jersey Steel’s factory. For the purposes of the study, a noise value of 60dBLAmaxFast has been used as a limit for the exposure of proposed new properties to impulsive noise. The expectation was that complaints would be made if this limit is exceeded (i.e. in accordance with the opinion expressed previously by Health Protection’s own noise consultants…INVC). The modelling results in the PBA report show: With no mitigation, 26 of the proposed properties would be exposed to daytime noise levels greater than 60dBLAmaxFast, at a height of 1.5m above ground; With closed roller shutter doors, no proposed homes would be exposed to noise levels over 60dBLAmaxFast at all levels; The optimum level of protection when roller shutter doors are open would be provided by a lean-to (Option F). Option F would also include a 5m high berm and a 1.8m high close-boarded boundary fence at Jersey Steel; Under Option F, only 2 proposed homes (Plots 1 & 2) would have facades exposed to noise levels in excess of 60dBLAmaxFast, at 1.5m above ground; Under Option F, 14 proposed homes (Plots 1-3, 16-20, 50-54 and 90) would be exposed to noise levels greater than 60dBLAmaxFast, at a first-floor height of 4.5m (N.B. a first-floor height is not necessarily appropriate to a day-time noise assessment); PBA suggest that sound insulation measures could be provided at the 14 properties in question to reduce the noise affecting the interior, including: Double glazed windows with a higher weighted sound reduction index; Removal of trickle vents and replacement with passive acoustically attenuated wall vents; Removal of letter plates (to be replaced with wall-mounted letter boxes, if applicable); Increased roof sound insulation, if applicable. Health Protection has responded by up-dating its noise monitoring of Jersey Steel which is now omitting noise at higher levels than those monitored in 2004. Reiterating its previous misgivings, Health Protection remains concerned about the potential risk of future house occupants being exposed to a Statutory Noise Nuisance. However, it also makes it clear that in such an event, it would not be able to take action against Jersey Steel if the company can show a ‘Best Practice Means’ defence. It suggests that Jersey Steel might be able to do this by the completion of a series of noise mitigation measures which it considers to be the basic minimum required if the development does take place. These measures could be addressed by Planning Obligation Agreements and conditions and are repeated here for ease of reference: Automatic roller shutter doors (default closed) – Jersey Steel Lean-to building – Jersey Steel; 3m high close-boarded fence – Jersey Steel’s boundary; 3m high berm with trees (close planted) to screen; all generally eastward facing facades to have acoustic glazing and affected properties to have whole house ventilation; all generally eastward facing boundary walls / fences to be a minimum 1.8m high close-board or solid construction; all additional measures stated in PBA report (para. 5.2.1) It is recognised that there could never be a solution to the noise issue that would completely satisfy all the parties in question, or that would guarantee that noise complaints would not arise in future. It is important to try to ensure that any new development is not subjected to an unacceptable degree of disturbance, but if the development of homes on this zoned land to meet the community’s identified housing needs is to proceed, it is clear that an element of compromise is required. It must also be borne in mind that the planning system should not be used to place unjustifiable / unreasonable obstacles in the way of developments. In view of the above, if the Minister is predisposed to approve the application, he should look to ensure that reasonable and proportionate noise mitigation measures are put in place to reduce the exposure of the occupants of the new homes to unacceptable levels of noise. It is held that the measures set out by Health Protection offer a reasonable and proportionate response, in all the circumstances. The off-site measures could reasonably be funded by the developer and could form the basis for a Planning Obligation Agreement. A planning condition could also be added seeking details of all the off-site and on-site noise mitigation measures and determining acceptable levels of exterior and interior noise exposure for the new homes with which the applicant must comply. Impact on Le Perquage Some residents believe the proposed development will impact adversely on the character, tranquillity and historic value of Le Perquage Walk. The need to avoid this was recognised from the outset of the planning process. To this end, the development brief calls for the creation of a buffer strip along Le Perquage, extending to the existing track in the middle of Field 853 (e.g. approx. 30m wide). At a later date, a former Committee then went on to suggest that there should be no homes built on Field 853. The current application does not propose any development of houses on Field 853 and the area is used to prove a naturally planted bank some 5m above existing ground levels which will screen the development from Le Perquage. The nearest of the proposed houses would be some 65m from the path. Impact on the amenities of ‘Bas du Mont’, ‘Kenricia’ and ‘Three Corners’ These three properties are situated at the foot of Rue de la Blanche Pierre on the other side of St. Peter’s Valley Road, immediately to the north of the site. Bas du Mont and Kenricia (i.e. in the same ownership) are the most affected by the proposed development, in that they currently enjoy open vistas through the roadside trees to the Bay beyond. The owners of ‘Three Corners’ currently enjoy incidental distant views from their conservatory to the Noirmont Headland, between the roofs of the above properties and over the top of a garage block. All the owners are naturally concerned about the loss of their views and have previously expressed these concerns. However, in the circumstances and on balance, it is not considered that the proposed application prejudices these properties in an undue and unreasonable manner. This site has been zoned for Category A housing and has been determined to be suitable per se for the purpose. The proposed housing is domestic in scale and the nearest of the proposed homes would be set behind a realigned treed bank some 45m (148 feet) from Bas du Mont and 65m (213 feet) from Three Corners. The site of the nearest proposed housing is also approximately 4m lower than that of Bas du Mont (i.e. the equivalent in height to the middle of the first floor windows). It should also be borne in mind that, for planning purposes, there is no right of a view. Future Maintenance of Public Areas The development brief calls for the long-term management and maintenance of open spaces, landscaped features and public areas generally, to be addressed as part of the application process. The onus is on the applicant to make suitable arrangements, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and the Environment. Such arrangements could be covered by planning obligation agreements. Keeping the Roads Clear of Mud The issue of mud on roads is essentially a matter for the Highway Authority, although there are grey areas as to the extent of its powers to enforce remedial action on private developers. If the application is supported, a planning condition could be added to any permit requiring the contractor to take adequate measures (including wheel washing) during construction, to ensure St. Peter’s Valley Road is kept clean of all mud and debris which might otherwise result from vehicles entering and leaving the site. This matter is also likely to be covered by Health Protection’s controls over building sites (see below) Potential Noise and Nuisance during Building Works The control of construction work (including work during unsociable hours) is undertaken by Health and Social Services (Health Protection). They have a document covering best practice on building sites and also have powers under the Statutory Nuisance (Jersey) Law. The stated requirements of Health Protection in this respect (including requirements for a site management plan, following guidance for contractors and liaison with local residents) will be added to any permit as an ‘informative comment’. | 
gov.je