Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, St Lawrence (P.48/2006)
1. The Council of Ministers is asked whether it wishes to comment on the report and proposition of the Connétable of St. Lawrence on ‘Island Plan 2002, Policy H2: Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, St Lawrence’ (P.48/2006), lodged ‘au Greffe’ on 12th May for debate on 6th June, which has been referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Standing Order 27. This Standing Order states that ‘the Greffier of the States shall refer a proposition lodged by a member of the States in his or her own right to the Council of Ministers for a report’. A copy of the proposition is attached, together with two sets of comments from the Planning and Environment Minister.
2. In the proposition the States are asked to agree that the Planning and Environment Minister should be requested to bring forward for approval by the Assembly an amendment to the Island Plan 2002 that would state that the site comprising Fields 848, 851, 853, and 854, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence should accommodate a maximum of 97 homes (as opposed to the indicative figure of 97 homes as stated in the Island Plan).
3. In his comments on the proposition, the Planning and Environment Minister notes that the application process has been lengthy, with the original application for 140 homes having been submitted in November 2004. Revised plans have been submitted for 129 homes, and these have been the subject of extensive consideration by the Planning Department.
4. The Minister also notes that the application has been submitted on the basis of a development brief (i.e. the planning authority’s framework of requirements for the development of the site, as required by the Island Plan), and the applicant could therefore legitimately expect an application to stand a reasonable chance of success where it complies with that brief. A States’ decision to approve the proposition could add complexity to what is already a difficult case. If the Planning Applications Panel were to reject the application for 129 homes primarily on the grounds that the States proposition had been adopted, this would open the decision to legal challenge, and the applicants would have a strong prospect of success on appeal to the Royal Court, i.e. on the grounds that the decision was unreasonable in planning terms and was inconsistent with the development brief approved by a former Committee.
5. The argument will no doubt be made in the States that the number of dwellings proposed by the applicant is significantly greater than the number given in the Island Plan. However, it should be noted that the Island Plan states that the figures given for yield on each of the zoned sites in the Island Plan ‘… are only an indication of yield’, and that the actual numbers would need to be arrived during the process of preparing the development brief. The development brief does not actually specify a maximum number of dwellings, but sets out a whole range of planning criteria that the applicant would be expected to meet when submitting an application. These criteria relate to numerous planning considerations and include among other things the configuration of the site, car parking, and noise buffering.
6. The Treasury and Resources Minister has been invited to comment on the matter, and it is understood that he will be publishing the following comment in the next couple of days –
‘The Minister for Treasury and Resources notes the comments of the Minister for Planning and Environment that there is a likelihood that legal costs will be awarded against the department. Such costs would need to be met from within the department's cash limits and would be likely to result in a reduction in front line service provision’.
7. These comments do highlight the difficulty that would arise if the States were to intervene at this late stage in the process. The applicant has prepared a plan which is generally in accordance with the planning brief and which addresses the requirements of the Island Plan, and it could be argued that a decision by the States to support a maximum of 97 dwellings will not help in the planning process, particularly as the Panel may find it difficult to go against a States decision.
8. If, on the other hand, the States were to reject the proposition, the Planning Applications Panel would be in a better position to consider the application on its own merits, having regard to all the relevant planning criteria (including the density and number of dwellings) and the application would be determined on that basis, without the risk of opening the States up to the likelihood of legal action in the event of a refusal.
8. Conclusion and recommendation: A States decision to approve the proposition would seem to be undesirable, particularly in view of the potential legal costs. It is therefore recommended that that Council should issue a comment along the following lines –
‘The Council of Ministers notes the comments of the Minister for Planning and Environment that a decision to support the proposition and judge the current application in accordance with the proposed alteration to the Island Plan is likely to result to result in the States becoming liable to legal costs. The Council does not believe it would be desirable for the States to be placed in this position, and it recommends that the proposition be rejected.
The Council notes that the application will in due course be considered by the Planning Applications Panel, and the Panel will have regard to all the relevant planning criteria when reaching a decision, including the density and yield of the site.’
Jeremy Harris,
Policy Adviser
17th May 2006