Esplanade Quarter, Esplanade, St. Helier: Planning Application: (P/2012/1141): Further determination by Minister

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made in conjunction with MD-PE-2013-0054:

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2013-0068			Application Number: P/2012/1141 (If applicable)
Decision Summary Title :	Esplanade Quarter, Esplanade, Jersey, JE2 3QB		Date of Decision Summary:		8 July 2013
Decision Summary Author:	Principal Planner		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:		n/a
Written Report Title :	P/2012/1141		Date of Written Report:		8 July 2013
Written Report Author:	Principal Planner		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)		Public
Subject: Esplanade Quarter, Esplanade, Jersey, JE2 3QB Construct office block with associated basement and landscaping. Temporary relocation of existing car park. UPDATED INFORMATION: EIS SUBMITTED. AMENDED PLANS: Revisions to site edged red application boundary.
Decision(s): By issue of MD-PE-2013-0054 on 21 May 2013 the Minister endorsed the Department recommendation that the subject planning application be approved, subject to the stated conditions and the prior completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement. Since that Ministerial Decision, and ahead of the completion of the required Planning Obligation Agreement, further representations have been received by the Minister, specifically: Roy McCarthy, dated 10 May 2013; Rachel Stirrup, dated 16 May 2013; Norma Pridiss, undated; Tony Bellows, dated 20 May 2013 Josephine Moss, dated 18 May 2013 These representations (attached) all object to the application, raising concerns in relation to: The design of the buildings being ‘glass monolithic cubes’; The Percentage for Art should be delivered by local artists; The sea wall should be preserved and enhanced; Wider public consultation should be undertaken for such projects. In addition, it has become apparent that the Department failed to acknowledge receipt of an earlier representation from Save our Shoreline (SOS), submitted on 8th October 2012 (now attached). This representation was not included with the earlier Ministerial background papers, and the objector was inadvertently not invited to the original Ministerial Meeting. The Minister therefore convened a meeting with SOS (also attended by the applicant and officers) to hear their representations. The Minister noted that the concerns related primarily to the retention of the sea wall, plus matters around the examination of ground conditions and pollution controls. The Minister was also conscious that the SOS representations repeated concerns which had been expressed in earlier objections and in comments from technical consultees. These had been considered in the earlier Department Report and discussed at the original Ministerial Meeting. The Minister also noted that Mr Cabeldu, of Save our Shoreline, had submitted an earlier representation (as an individual) which included concerns similar to those now being presented, and which the Minister had previously considered. The Minister confirmed he has considered all the representations and is content that the matters relevant to ground conditions and pollution controls are properly covered by proposed conditions on the planning permit. However, he saw merit in seeking to retain the maximum amount of the sea wall and promenade outside the building line, which, following discussion with the applicant could total about 27m. The Minister noted final landscape works were already controlled by condition and required that the details of the retention of the majority of the retained sea wall, parapet and promenade are to be submitted by way of a further condition to require: Prior to the commencement of development, drawings at no less than 1:100 scale shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to show hard landscape treatments of the open areas to the north of the building hereby approved, to include the retention of the majority of the sea wall parapet, the sea wall face and the promenade, outside the building line and outside the key entrance points. All the approved works are to be completed in full prior to first occupation of the building hereby approved, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the historic environment in accordance with Policy HE1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. In addition, the Minister reviewed the proposed roof treatments and required that the landscape condition (no. 1) on the proposed planning permit be amended to include within the text commencing “for the avoidance of doubt” that: outside the areas of mechanical and electrical plant on the roof, a sedum treatment shall be delivered. Accordingly the Minister instructed officers to amend his earlier approval of the application as noted above. This Ministerial Decision is supplementary to, and is to be read in conjunction with MD-PE-2013-0054
Reason(s) for Decision: The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard to the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and all of the other material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policies SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6, SP7, GD1, GD2, GD4, GD5, GD6, GD7, GD8, GD9, NE1, HE5, BE1, BE2, BE5, BE10, EO1, TT4, TT7, TT8, TT9, TT10, NR1, NR7, WM1, WM5, LWM2 and LWM2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. In addition, the development has been assessed against the Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2006), Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter (April 2008), Masterplan Amendment (March 2011) and the Esplanade Quarter Design Code (September 2008). In this case, the proposed development is regarded as acceptable having balanced an assessment of the objectives of the various individual policies, and the Supplementary Planning Guidance documents. The Minister acknowledges the application delivers a proportionate amount of the Masterplan objectives, and does not preclude the full delivery of the Masterplan objectives in future phases of development. The Minister is further conscious of the relationship with the wider Esplanade Quarter site and has identified the need for a Phasing Plan to manage that delivery. In addition, the representations raised to the scheme have been carefully assessed. The Minister acknowledges the representations and has weighed them against the benefits delivered by the application. Taken as a package, the Minister believes the application to be a positive benefit, and that the potential impacts will not be unreasonable in all the circumstances.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Notify Agent, Applicant and all other interested parties
Signature: Deputy R C Duhamel		PLeg / AS Initials		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:				Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Esplanade Quarter, Esplanade, St. Helier: Planning Application: (P/2012/1141): Further determination by Minister

Department of the Environment

Planning and Building Services

South Hill

St Helier, Jersey, JE2 4US

Tel: +44 (0)1534 445508

Fax: +44 (0)1534 445528

Department of the Environment

Report for Ministerial Meeting

1. Application No.

P/2012/1141

2. Site Address	Esplanade Quarter, Esplanade, St. Helier, JE2 3QB.

3. Applicant	States Of Jersey Development Comapny

4. Description	Construct office block with associated basement and landscaping. Temporary relocation of existing car park. UPDATED INFORMATION: EIS SUBMITTED. AMENDED PLANS: Revisions to site edged red application boundary.

5. Type	Major Application

6. Date Validated	05/09/2012

7. Zones & Constraints	Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy Policy SP2 – Efficient Use of Resources Policy SP3 – Sequential Approach to Development Policy SP4 – Protecting the Natural and Historic Environment Policy SP5 – Economic Growth and Diversification Policy SP6 – Reducing Dependence on the Car Policy SP7 – Better by Design Policy GD1 - General Development Considerations Policy GD2 – Demolition and Replacement of Buildings Policy GD4 – Planning Obligations Policy GD5 – Skyline, Views and Vistas Policy GD6 – Contaminated Land Policy GD7 - Design Quality Policy GD8 - Percentage for Art Policy GD9 – Signs and Advertisements Policy NE1 – Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity Policy HE5 – Preservation of Archaeological Resources Policy BE1 – Town centre Vitality Policy BE2 – Delivery of the St Helier Waterfront Policy BE5 – Tall Buildings Policy BE10 – Roofscape Policy EO1 – New Office Development Policy TT4 - Cycle Parking Policy TT7 – Better Public Transport Policy TT8 – Access to Public Transport Policy TT9 – Travel Plans Policy TT10 – Off Street Public Car Parking Policy NR1 – Protection of Water Resources Policy NR7 - Renewable Energy in New Developments Policy WM1 - Waste Minimisation and New Development Policy WM5 – Recycling Centres and Waste Collection Policy LWM2 - Foul Sewerage Facilities Policy LWM2 – Surface Water Drainage Facilities Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2006) Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter (April 2008) Masterplan Amendment (March 2011) Esplanade Quarter Design Code (September 2008)

Summary

This application presents the first building in the first phase of the Esplanade Quarter project. It would deliver a building of about 80,000 sq ft (gross) to provide 67,000 sq ft (net) of Grade A office accommodation with 41 basement car parking spaces.

The framework for determining the application is the Jersey Island Plan 2011 which, through Policy BE2, references the 2006 Waterfront SPG and 2008 Esplanade Masterplan (with the 2011 Amendment). The existence of the 2010 outline planning permission with associate POA is a further material consideration.

This is not a “reserved matters” proposal under the outline permission, rather, it is a distinct new full application to be assessed on its own merits.

Representations have primarily come from parties with competing commercial development projects and relate, in the main, to compliance with the Masterplan and terms of the outline permission. It is important to state that it is not the role of the Department to protect or promote one project over another, and the Report focuses on the relevant planning issues.

The Masterplan for Esplanade Quarter was approved after significant public consultation and amended in 2011 to take account of changing circumstances and to reflect emerging trends, particularly in the demand for office floorspace. This response to change and market demand represents a key component of all masterplanning

As the applicant points out in their responses to the letters of representation, the Masterplan is not intended to be a strait-jacket. The Masterplan has always envisaged a demand-led approach to the construction, and the need for pragmatism and flexibility has been illustrated with the previous amendments to the initial approach.

The current application is not contrary to the aspirations contained within the hierarchy of policy documents, and the application does not run contrary to the vision and objectives of the Masterplan. Whilst it may not take forward the phasings from the original Masterplan, equally, it does not vary its objectives and is compliant with its aspirations. It simply represents a different way of arriving at the same conclusion

The conditions that were framed around the 2010 outline planning consent consent and the POA apply specifically to that scheme approved at that time. Some matters in the current application may be ‘common’ but this proposal is plainly not the approval of the reserved matters under the outline permission. As a result it will not carry (nor is it appropriate for it to do so) all the conditions previously applied.

In summary, this proposal is for a high-quality building, which has received the endorsement of the Jersey Architecture Commission. It is appropriately sited, and of a scale which causes no unreasonable harm to the streetscene or local amenities. The scale and form has also been tested in the 3D model, to appraise wider views, and is considered acceptable.

This is a very strong architectural composition which accords with the objectives of the Masterplan, and hierarchy of other policy matters, and represents the first step in bringing forward the wider objectives of the Esplanade Quarter project.

Department Recommendation

APPROVE

Subject to conditions and completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement

8. Site Description & Existing Use	The site is the north-east corner of the Esplanade car park, near the junction of Castle Street and the Esplanade.

9. Proposed Development	The proposal is for the first element of the Esplanade Quarter development. It comprises an office building of 6 floors + plant, containing 7,426 sq m (79,933 sq ft) of accommodation (GIA) plus a basement with 41 car parking spaces, accessed off Castle Street. Other works include hard and soft landscape around the site, plus the relocation of the lost public car parking to the south site of La Route de la Liberation, to maintain a balance of 525 spaces.

10. Relevant Planning History	Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2006) This document provides planning guidance for the development of Jersey’s Waterfront - its main aim is to enhance the policy within the Island Plan. It provides a framework within which new development proposals for the Waterfront can be generated and considered. The guidance requires developers to focus on both the intrinsic merits of the buildings that will occupy the different sites and to address the integration and quality of those buildings with the spaces created around them and by them. It requires that consideration and commitment is given to: design quality within individual sites and where sites interface with others social and economic implications of schemes traffic implications environmental awareness service infrastructure other matters connected with sustainability Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter (April 2008) The Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter proposes a mix of uses: new office space a hotel self-catering holiday accommodation apartments for local residents four large public squares smaller public squares and boulevards shops restaurants and bars The area will be linked to the new Weighbridge Square and the redesigned Les Jardins gardens. The Masterplan aims to: seamlessly integrate the old town with the waterfront create a distinctive mixed use quarter in St Helier of the highest design quality provide office buildings for the financial services industry provide attractive apartments for local residents establish new opportunities for the tourism industry, with a new hotel and self catering accommodation provide a significant financial return for the Island create important new public spaces and civic squares for everyone to enjoy ensure that the Esplanade Quarter is a place which attracts people and exudes life and vitality Masterplan Amendment (March 2011) Work subsequent to the 2008 Masterplan suggested that the emerging demand for commercial office floor space necessitated some amendments to be made in the eastern section of the Esplanade Quarter in relation to: elements of layout size scale and location of the open spaces and buildings In considering the proposed changes the Minister for Planning and Environment has been determined that the core principles behind the master plan should not be compromised in any way. The Minister is satisfied that the changes are acceptable and that the principles which define the master plan will not be compromised. The amendments were adopted by MD-PE-2011-0029. Esplanade Quarter Design Code (September 2008) The Design Code is a set of illustrated rules and requirements which instruct and advise development proposals. They further develop the concept of the Masterplan for Esplanade Quarter and expand upon the design vision. They set out design principles for streets, massing, landscaping, architecture and building performance. In particular they: illustrate the concepts and vision behind the Masterplan will ensure a consistent approach to public space design and treatment set out principles for design that will be adopted within future detailed planning applications to ensure a high quality architectural outcome inform the public and potential developers of the vision and design aspirations for the Waterfront Outline planning permission (July 2010) PP/2008/1680 was approved in July 2010 and granted permission for a mixed use development of 620,000 sq ft of offices, 388 residential apartments, 65 self-catering units, winter gardens, boutique hotel, 54,000 sq ft restaurant / retail, public open spaces, 1425 car parking spaces (900 private car parking spaces and 525 pubic ones) with a new underground road tunnel and other associated road works and landscaping. This permission was subject to 54 conditions and a Planning Obligation Agreement. Below Ground Works Application P/2008/1681 was submitted in August 2008, and sought detailed planning permission for excavation and enabling works to form basement car park, new underground road tunnel and other associated road works and general infrastructural works. This application has not been determined. ____________________ The current application is not for ‘reserved matters’ approval as the second part of the outline application process. Rather, it is a new full application, to be determined on its own merits. The outline permission is however a material consideration in the determination.

11. Consultations

Parish in its responses dated 27 February 2013 and 26 October 2012 request: that the overall refuse strategy is confirmed with them; that cycle routes are kept separate from pedestrian routes; and, consideration be given to making the Castle Street junction more pedestrian-friendly.

Highways section of TTS in its letter dated 5 April 2013 request that this development contributes a proportionate financial contribution towards a package of highways and transport measures as envisaged within the earlier applications (£172,190). They also note a number of inconsistencies with the Masterplan, being: the lack of a 2-storey underground car park; the need to widen Castle Street (which is not necessary at this stage); and, the need to improve the public realm on at the Castle Street junction with the Esplanade (which TTS suggest could be a condition of any planning permission).

TTS Highways also require that the phasing maintains 525 car parking spaces, and that the loss of 100 motorcycle spaces must be similarly addressed, with the amount of public bicycle spaces increased to 20.

They further require the junction of the new surface car park and La Rue de L’Eau is remodelled to allow eastbound traffic to exit to La Route Du Port Elizabeth, rather than have to go westwards on La Route de la Liberation.

Technical feedback is given on the arrangements for the access to the office car park, and require that details are given to TTS for validation. They also request that the need for a slip lane from Castle Street to the Esplanade is reserved pending submission of outstanding information relating to junction capacity.

They confirm that the travel plan is acceptable, and request it is conditioned for 5 years.

Drainage section of TTS in its letter dated 26 October confirm the availability of public foul and surface water sewers, and request that details are agreed in advance as there may need to be restrictions on outflows. They also recommend that all external hard surfaces incorporate permeable paving or a SUDS system.

Waste Management / Solid Waste section of TTS in their response of 4 March 2013 request further consultation with the applicant in relation to the capacity of La Collette to receive the forecast excavated waste if it is all contaminated. They raise concern that further consideration has not been given to separation of recyclables for operational waste, and the relocation of the existing ‘bring bank’. They are also disappointed that the Waste Management Plan is to be developed by the final contractor, and provide comment on various elements where they would expect on-going monitoring with their office.

Health Protection Team of H&SS in its letter dated 20 March 2013 recommend the lead contractor produces a CEMP to include: dust management and monitoring; noise management (including hours of operation); the management of asbestos; and, vibration. In relation to land contamination, they acknowledge that beyond the conclusions of the submitted documentation, that work on site should cease if unexpected contamination is discovered, and the Department notified immediately. They also request that further information should be submitted in relation to ground gas.

Historic Environment Team of DoE in its memo dated 18 March 2013 raise concern that the submission does not adequately deal with the townscape implications or the Listed Sea Wall.

Jersey Water in its letter dated 8 November 2012 confirm they have examined the application and have no comments to make.

Health and Safety Inspectorate in their letter dated 7 February 2013 confirm it is the responsibility of the applicant (as developer) to ensure that any risks to workers and others have been adequately assessed and that arrangements are in place to manage or mitigate any risks.

Environmental Protection in their response of 5 April 2013 provide a detailed review of the outstanding matters from the earlier outline planning permission, and express concern that they were not better investigated in the interim period, however, they recommend conditions to deal with the detailed concerns.

They further comment that the temporary car park should have further investigations to facilitate a drainage solution, they note that bonded asbestos may be co-disposed with inert fill and so will require special attention, and they request the developer contacts them to discuss other regulatory arrangements.

____________________

The applicant has not responded to the feedback from the technical consultees.

All consultations are attached with the background papers

12. Representations

There have been 10 letters of representation from 5 different parties. All the letters raise objections to the development. The issues cross a full spectrum of matters and the text below is only a summary of their content. The applicant has responded in detail to all of the representations, and for ease of reading their response is summarised immediately after the notes on each representation, in italics.

The letters of representation and the responses from the applicant are included in full with the Ministerial background papers, and it is important that their full content is read.

OBJECTIONS COLLAS CRILL

(on behalf of owners of 33-34 Esplanade)

25 September 2012

The proposal is for a poorly-designed box, being a stand-alone application failing to explain how it delivers as part of phased approach to the overall Masterplan, or how it delivers the terms of the POA for the outline application. The concern relates to the delivery of the full package of land-uses in the Masterplan, and a significant emphasis is also placed on the failure to include the lowering of La Route de la Liberation in the phasing.

Specific concern is expressed about:

the plant on the roof being contrary to Policy BE10 and SPG4,
the lack of a roof garden being contrary to the Masterplan and outline permission;
The Design Statement has inadequate views;
Signage is inappropriately shown;
The Percentage for Art statement is missing;
A Heritage Statement is missing;
The hydrogeological model is very limited;
The office car park ramp is too steep;
The BREEAM assessment method is out-of-date;
The design does not convey Jersey-relevance;
An EIA is required;

In conclusion, they set out their position that a new Public Inquiry is needed as the application departs so significantly from the principal objectives of the Masterplan and requirements of the outline permission.

8 January 2013

This letter effectively re-states the original concerns as a series of 19 key questions.

11 January 2013

This letter re-states that a new Public Inquiry is needed, or a raft of Third Party appeals will follow.

14 February 2013

This letter follows the submission of the EIA and notes that many areas have been covered, but that numerous matters are not sufficiently dealt with. The key issue remains the inability to demonstrate how the complete phasing of the Masterplan occurs, then a range of more detailed matters are also raised (generally as per the bullet-points above), summarising the 25 September 2013 letter.

7 March 2013

This letter focuses on the legal and policy framework as relevant to the determination of the application, and re-states the opinion that the development fails to comply with the hierarchical policy framework (the Jersey Island Plan 2011, the Waterfront SPG 2006 and the Esplanade Quarter Masterplan 2008), repeating the need for a Public Inquiry.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO COLLAS CRILL

By letter of 28 March 2013 the applicant has responded to the sequence of correspondence from Collas Crill, breaking the representations down, paragraph-by-paragraph, so replying to each point made.

Initially they note the representation is on behalf of Le Masurier, who have a competing commercial office development, and also note that Collas Crill are acting for Harcourt in respect of legal action against the applicant and the Minister for Treasury and Resources.

In relation to the phasing of the masterplan, they confirm their opinion that the Masterplan and Amendment recognise the development of the Esplanade Quarter will occur in phases. This situation responds to market demand and puts the sinking of the road into a later phase. The Jersey International Finance Centre, containing 6 office buildings, will be Phase 1, with the subject application being part A within that Phase. The applicant points out that this phasing is explained within the application documentation.

Aside from the general ‘layout’ phasing, the letter in response provides a detailed commentary on the delivery of the six principal objectives of the Masterplan, and how these are met within the current submission and / or how their future delivery will be facilitated. The applicant responds in detail to the terms of the POA and conditions on the outline permission, highlighting the necessary timetable ‘triggers’ for the submission of relevant details.

Turning to the detail matters (as bulleted above) the applicant responds as follows:

Their response explains that the roof plant / enclosure is designed to take account of key views, and complies with Policy BE11 and the SPG. An explanation is also provided about the roof garden / living roof being inappropriate for a multi-tenant office building.
The target of BREEAM Excellent is assisted by the incorporation of air source heat pumps to assist in the target of a 20% reduction in energy use – with the roof being the most practical location for this plant.
The application is accompanied by a digital model, as inserted in the town 3D model, from which views can be obtained;
Percentage for Art is delivered in a number of forms, including the ground floor work to the glass;
A method statement will be submitted before any work to the sea wall, as required by the POA for the outline permission.
Similarly, the Flood Risk Assessment will be submitted before the commencement of works, as required by the POA for the outline. Interim work suggests the site will be protected from a major flood, as the site is 1m higher than the Esplanade / Commercial Street.
The transition areas to the ramp make the gradient acceptable;
The project is registered under BREEAM 2008, being the basis of the outline application;
The Architecture Commission confirm the building would set an appropriately high benchmark.
An EIA has been submitted.

The applicants set out their view that a Public Inquiry is not necessary as the proposals are demonstrated to be in accordance with the hierarchy of planning legislation and guidance, with the outline itself having been determined after a public inquiry. Further, there are only 5 parties who have submitted representations, and 4 of these are ‘rival developers’.

OBJECTIONS COMPROP

15 October 2012

Concern is expressed about the Masterplan being approached in a piecemeal manner, without enough public consultation. The validity of implementing the Masterplan in this method is considered to ‘cast-aside’ its objectives.

The objector also questions whether the wider traffic implications of the off-site replacement car parking and potential Esplanade car park access have been suitably considered. Detailed points are made in relation to whether BREEAM targets will be up-graded to ‘outstanding’, and whether the plant means the building should be considered as 7-storeys, not 6.

27 March 2013

The objector repeats their concern that the Phase 1 application compromises the development of the Esplanade Quarter and should be rejected as being contrary to Policy BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011.

They express concern that the application submission is disjointed, with a poor EIA, having shortcomings in relation to townscape, heritage and waste management / contamination.

Commentary is provided on the capacity for new office development in St Helier generally, with the objector concluding that it is not in the public interest for further permissions to be granted. Further queries are raised about the commercial benefits provided to SoJDC providing an inequitable market, and whether the whole Esplanade Quarter site might be better put to other uses in today’s economic circumstances.

Further disquiet is expressed about:

the long-term likelihood of the road being sunk, with the objector recalling that extra height was only considered acceptable on the basis that the additional profit would fund the sinking of the road.
The seawall being relocated in a position which has no relevance whatsoever.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO COMPROP

In a letter dated 26 March 2013 the applicant responds on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis to all the points made by Comprop.

Initially, they note that Comprop have a recently-renewed permit for 57,512 sq ft of office floorspace at 70-72 Esplanade.

The applicant then sets out their view on the phasing of the development and its compliance with the Masterplan, identifying that it is not a straightjacket but allows flexibility to respond to the needs of the market and the Island.

It is the opinion of the applicant that no other site has been subject to the extent of public consultation as the Esplanade, and the level of interest in the latest application amounts to objections from just 5 parties, 4 of which are rival developers.

In relation to their ‘status’ the applicants provide a breakdown of their remit, Board and the history of the site – explaining that other developers must have brought their schemes forward in full knowledge of this context. The reason the other permits have not been implemented is, in the opinion of the applicant, as they do not provide the nature and quality of office space required by the international occupiers which are essential to Jersey’s economic future.

They confirm the car parking arrangements, including access have been considered in the various technical documents accompanying the application , which identify no shortcomings.

The applicant re-states that the outline permission requires the buildings to be BREEAM “Very Good”, with their target actually being the higher standard of “Excellent”, so it is incorrect to refer to the need to reach “Outstanding”.

OBJECTIONS TITAN PROPERTIES

The representations re-state the concerns from other parties (as summarised earlier) that the development deviates from the Masterplan, leading to questions whether the over-arching objectives will ever be achieved. The key points are:

Sinking the road will now be at least 10-years away;
The objective of mixed use development are not met;
If demand is realised then neighbouring sites will be left in a state of disrepair which will not deliver an international-quality offer.
No homes will be provided before 2023;
An application for a single office-block will not deliver a real sense of place for residents and visitors to enjoy;
No new tourist accommodation is anticipated before 2023.

Further the representation questions whether the necessary work has been done in relation to the quantum of car parking being replaced, and the Flood Risk Assessment.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO TITAN

By letter of 26 March 2013 the applicant has provided a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the objections from Titan.

Initially, they note that Titan have a planning permit for 33,0000 sq ft of office accommodation at 19-21 Esplanade, and suggest the objections are motivated by commercial competitive interests.

The applicant repeats their position as expressed in response to other representations, concerning their compliance with the Masterplan objectives of the outline permit.

In specific response to the matters summarised in the bullet-points above, the applicant has stated:

It will cost tens-of-millions of pounds to lower the road, and this can only be delivered when sufficient funds have been generated from the rest of the site. The current application is the first element of the process.
There are no time limits to realise the Masterplan, the development always has to be demand-led.
The Esplanade Quarter represents the only blank-canvas to deliver the international quality office space which is critical to the economic interests of the Island. Given the stock of existing permissions it is evident that not all will get built.
The housing element was always envisaged to be towards the end of the 2011 Island Plan period, and SoJDC have other projects (Castle Quays Phase 2, Westwater and Zephyrus) which can yield residential development.
The current application includes a piazza and temporary landscaped areas, and wider Phase 1 site will deliver an unprecedented amount of new public space;
New opportunities for visitor accommodation will follow in later phases;

In relation to the terms of the POA for the outline application, the current submission deals with all relevant matters to the some timetable triggers as were envisaged at the outline stage.

OBJECTIONS PALLADIUM GROUP

The objections focus on two core issues, being non-compliance with the Masterplan by reference to a single-building failing to meet the objectives, and the status of SoJDC within a competitive development industry.

The representation also raises a detailed concern about the 6 storey + plant height, with very good floor-to-floor levels, which is considered to be excessive in the context of other recently approved schemes.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO PALLADIUM GROUP

The applicant has provided a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the Palladium representations, commencing by noting they have permission at 5 / 6 Esplanade for an office development of 52,000 sq ft, which has not commenced.

The applicant re-confirms their position in relation to the status of SoJDC and the history of the proposals for the Waterfront / Esplanade Quarter, confirming that the recent schemes for office development along the Esplanade must have been brought forward in full knowledge of this context.

They ‘vehemently dispute’ the statement that they have an unfair advantage, and point out the significant costs associated with bringing forward the Esplanade site. They also provide examples of other recent planning permissions for buildings of similar heights.

OBJECTION FROM SOCIETE JERSIAISE

The representation expresses disappointment about the block-led layout and the detailed architecture which is considered to lack Jersey relevance, being little more than a rectangular slab. Further concern is expressed about the treatment of the sea wall, which the representation suggests indicates the lack of understanding of the context from which this site has evolved.

APPLICANTS RESPONSE TO SOCIETE JERSIAISE

The applicant provides a detailed review of the advisory input to the evolution of the design principles, including from the Waterfront Design Group, who supported the Amendment to the Masterplan which resulted in the arrangements that form the basis of the design in this detailed application.

In relation to the sea wall the applicant confirms that there are about 220m of sea wall along the Esplanade, and that 160m is to be preserved in situ, with fewer breaks than was originally envisaged, and to be further enhanced by exposing the buried face.

All letters of representation and responses are attached with the background papers

13. Planning Assessment	The application falls to be considered in the context of the policies within the Jersey Island Plan 2011. The key policies which are particularly relevant to this application are set out below, with a short assessment of whether the scheme is considered to comply. Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy – sets out that development will be concentrated in the Island’s Built-Up Area, as defined on the Proposals Map. This application is within the Built-Up Area. Policy SP2 – Efficient Use of Resources – sets out that development should make the most efficient and effective use of land, energy, water resources and buildings to help deliver a more sustainable form and patters of sustainable development. In particular the proposed spatial distribution of new development should be designed to limit carbon emissions. This proposal is considered to be an appropriate location for new office development, and the proposal makes it clear that it intends to target BREEAM “Excellent” and be the first development in the Island at this benchmark. A Pre-Assessment for the shell and core is submitted with the application and anticipates this can be achieved. Policy SP3 – Sequential Approach to Development – establishes a hierarchy of priorities for new office development in favour of development in the Town Centre and Esplanade. The application clearly accords with this priority. Policy SP4 – Protecting the Natural and Historic Environment – provides for a high level of protection for the Island’s natural and historic environment, including heritage assets (archaeology, historic buildings, structures and places) which contribute and define its unique character and identity. These issues are considered in more depth in later sections of this Report. Policy SP5 – Economic Growth and Diversification – gives a high priority to the maintenance and diversification of the economy, and supports the redevelopment of vacant and under-used existing employment land and floorspace for new employment uses. The application is presented as the opportunity to develop an international standard office building on a site, which is considered by the applicant to be an opportunity that cannot be delivered elsewhere on the Island. Policy SP6 – Reducing Dependence on the Car – applications for employment floorspace must be able to demonstrate that they will reduce dependence on the private car by providing for more environmentally friendly modes of transport. The application proposes 41 car parking spaces in a one-level basement and to maintain the 525 public spaces by using land on the south side of the underpass. A Non-Motorised Users Report is included with the application, which highlights that 32 cycle spaces will be provided in the basement, with showers and locker facilities. This also identifies that additional cycle parking could be delivered in the external landscaped areas, which would accord with the TTS Highways requirement for 20 replacement spaces for those lost in existing external areas. The Report also identifies close proximity to the bus station, and the requirements of this policy are considered to be met. Policy SP7 – Better by Design – this confirms that all development must be of a high quality design that maintains and enhances the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. This issue is discussed in more detail in the later sections of this Report. Policy GD1 - General Development Considerations - states that development proposals will not be permitted unless the proposal contributes towards a more sustainable form and pattern of development, does not seriously harm the natural and historic environment, does not seriously harm the amenities of neighbouring uses, contributes or does not detract from the Island’s economy, contributes to reducing the dependence on the car, and is of a high quality of design. These considerations will be reviewed in the later sections of this Report. Policy GD2 – Demolition and Replacement of Buildings – this policy confirms that demolition of a building will only be permitted where it is not appropriate in sustainability terms to repair of refurbish it, and where adequate provision is made for waste management and minimisation. There are no buildings proposed for demolition and the waste management issues are reviewed later in this report. Policy GD4 – Planning Obligations – this policy identifies that such arrangements may be utilised when as a direct result of a proposed development additional infrastructure or amenities are required. The application is of such a complex nature that this may be an appropriate mechanism to ensure wider benefits are yielded, if permission is forthcoming. Policy GD5 – Skyline, Views and Vistas – protects important views and the setting of land landmark buildings and places. Development that has a seriously detrimental impact, by virtue of its siting, scale, profile or design, will not be permitted. These considerations will be reviewed in the later sections of this Report as part of the review of the overall design implications. Policy GD6 – Contaminated Land – Proposals will be permitted on contaminated land provided satisfactory investigations have been undertaken and an acceptable programme of treatment identified. Detailed reports have been submitted and the advice of consultees is that a tight framework of conditions will be necessary, with much of the technical work being left until the later stages of the project this represents a risk to the applicant. Policy GD7 - Design Quality - requires that a high quality of design that respects, conserves and contributes positively to the diversity and distinctiveness of the landscape and built context will be sought in all developments. The issues relevant to this assessment are considered in the later sections of this Report. Policy GD8 - Percentage for Art - states that the Minister will encourage the contribution of a percentage of design and development costs to the provision of public art. The key public art, aside from the landscape and public realm works, is to the ground floor windows adjacent to the colonnade. Policy GD9 – Signs and Advertisements – stages that such proposal will be permitted where their form does not detract from the building or cause an issue in relation to public safety. The application has not sought advertisement consent for any signage and although some generic locations are identified if permission is forthcoming it should be accompanied by an ‘informative’ that no consent is granted for adverts / signage. Policy NE1 – Conservation and Enhancement of Biodiversity – there is a presumption in favour of applications which deliver these objectives. A Phase 1 survey identifies that the site offers some habitats for birds and invertebrates, and that the replacement ornamental planting would restore these habitats. Policy HE1 - Protecting Listed Buildings and Places - presumes in favour of the preservation of the architectural and historic character of listed buildings and places and their settings. The key historic asset is the sea wall, with 60m of the 200m proposed to be relocated in the landscaped areas to the south of the application site. The issues in relation to the sea wall were considered in depth during the Public Inquiry for the 2008 applications, when the Inspector concluded that the benefit of retention of the subject 60m element did not outweigh the damaging effect on the overall layout of the scheme. Policy HE5 – Preservation of Archaeological Resources – planning applications which may impact on archaeological resources should include the necessary assessment. The site is ‘made ground’ and as such there is no requirement for archaeological investigations. Policy BE1 – Town Centre Vitality – seeks to protect and promote the vitality of the core retail area, and proposals which involve the change of use of ground floor premises will only be permitted where they do not detract from the primary shopping function and contribute to the vitality and viability of the core retail area. The policy then includes a series of detailed matters to form the basis of an assessment. This site is outside the ‘Core Retail Area’. Policy BE2 – Delivery of the St Helier Waterfront – this is a key policy and sets out that the principal considerations for the delivery of the St Helier Waterfront will be the 2006 SPG and the 2008 Masterplan. Analysis of the application in this context is central to the assessment, and is considered in the later sections of this report. Policy BE5 – Tall Buildings – this policy states that tall buildings, defined as those above approximately 18m in height, or rising more than 7m above their neighbours, will only be permitted where their exceptional height can be fully justified in urban design terms [appropriateness to location and context; visual impact; impact on views; design quality and contribution to the character of St Helier]. It further states that development which exceeds the height of buildings in the immediate vicinity will not be approved. The proposed building is approximately 25m high and so falls within the scope of this policy. The implications are considered in later sections of this report. Policy BE10 – Roofscape – the siting of roof plant, equipment or other structures will not normally be permitted, except in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that it cannot be located in the building envelope and subject to other detailed criteria. This applicant has provided both a design-led solution to the roof-top plant, and a technical justification as to why it cannot be located in the basement. In the context of SPG4 of May 2008 this is considered acceptable. Objective EO1 – Office Policy – in support of assisting to retain the position of Jersey an international centre for finance and other business activities, the Island Plan has a main aim of ensuring that sufficient land and opportunities are available for further office space, and seeks to keep that space within the town centre. The applicant makes the case that their proposal seeks to directly address this objective, and deliver top-quality international specification office accommodation. There are obviously other opportunities for the similar provision, and representations have been received from owners of other such sites. The planning system is only one element of the development process and cannot, in itself, deliver occupiers to sites. It is not the purpose of the planning system to favour one office scheme over another. The Department will consider each application on its own merits in accordance with the policies of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and all other material considerations. Policy EO1 – New Office Development – the policy supports the development of new offices within the Esplanade Quarter. The application clearly accords with the objectives of this policy. Policy TT4 - Cycle Parking - requires cycle parking provision in all new developments. The proposal includes significant cycle parking provision as reviewed in relation to Policy SP6 earlier. Policy TT7 – Better Public Transport – seeks to ensure that developers contribute to better public transport facilities and infrastructure. TTS Highways have made such a request in their consultation response and this would need to be secured via a POA if permission is forthcoming. Policy TT8 – Access to Public Transport – seeks to ensure that where bus services are low or infrequent in relation to the scale or nature of development proposals, that the developer will be expected to support the provision of an appropriate service. The site is within easy access of the main bus station. Policy TT9 - Travel Plans - requires that developments which would generate significant amounts of travel will be required to submit a travel plan. The submitted Transport Statement does include a framework for a Travel Plan which has been endorsed by TTS Highways. Policy TT10 – Off-Street Public Car Parking – this policy acknowledges that replacement car parking for the Esplanade Quarter may be required during the plan period. The application makes provision for there to be no loss of car parking, with the replacement spaces being delivered on the south side of the La Route de la Liberation. Policy NR1 – Protection of Water Resources – the policy requires adequate provision to be made for foul and surface water disposal to avoid risk to the aquatic environment. TTS Drainage have confirmed the availability of adequate infrastructure, and Environmental Protection have confirmed they are content with this issue subject to interceptors being installed for the new car park. Policy NR7 - Renewable Energy in New Developments – requires large developments to incorporate on-site low carbon or renewable energy production equipment to off-set predicted carbon emissions by at least 10%, except where it is demonstrated that such provision would make the development unviable or where it would have an adverse visual or amenity impact. The submissions from the applicant explain that the target of BREEAM Excellent is assisted by the incorporation of air source heat pumps to assist in the target of a 20% reduction in energy use. Policy WM1 - Waste Minimisation and New Development - states that the Minister will encourage the minimisation of waste generated as part of construction activity and an increase in recycling, re-use and recovery of resources. Major developments will only be permitted where measures are taken to minimise the waste arising and to recycle, re-use and recover as much as possible of generated waste materials, and opportunities are taken to maximise on-site management of waste. Where inert waste generated cannot be re-used on site, it should be diverted for recycling with a licensed contractor. The submitted Design Site Waste Management Plan identifies that due to the nature of the reclaimed land, the excavated materials are generally intended to be taken to La Collette. 20% may be recyclable, and on the basis of 9,300 m3, minus 20% the excavations represent about one month’s ‘fill’ at current La Collette rates. A preliminary Waste Management Plan provides an acceptable framework for the development of a live document, if permission is forthcoming, to be produced by principal contractors. Policy WM5 – Recycling Centres and Waste Collection – this policy sets out that the Minister will seek to ensure that appropriate storage is provided for waste management and recycling in all new developments. The submitted Waste Strategy Report contains details of the proposed arrangements, which will involve 3 streams (general waste / paper and card / glass and metal) to transit to a waste storage room, then collection in small vans by an appointed contractor. Policy LWM2 - Foul Sewerage Facilities – this policy requires that development which results in the discharge of sewerage effluent will not be permitted unless it provides a system of foul drainage that connects to the mains foul sewer. TTS Drainage have confirmed there is capacity for the development to connect to the mains foul sewer network. Policy LWM3 - Surface Water Drainage Facilities - requires proposals for new development to incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems into the overall design to ensure that surface water run-off is managed. Discharge rates will be required to be limited to pre-existing natural rates of run-off to avoid causing flooding. The consultation letter from TTS Drainage highlights the need for permeable options / SUDS, and if permission is forthcoming then this issue could be dealt with by condition.
a) Policy Considerations

b) Size, scale Form and Siting	The form, size, scale and siting of the building relates to the footprint grid and heights as set out within the Amendment to the Masterplan, and Design Code. The January 2013 Design Guidance for St Helier explicitly sets out that new development within the Esplanade Quarter will remain to be assessed under the terms of the Esplanade Masterplan and Design Code. Notably the same occurs in the Willie Miller Urban Character Appraisal where issues of scale are considered by other Supplementary Guidance (i.e. the Design Code and Amended Masterplan). The building does exceed the thresholds of the Tall Buildings Policy and has been reviewed in the 3D model so that the potential impacts can be properly understood. Having undertaken that exercise it is considered that the form is appropriate to its location and context, and that there will be no unreasonable impacts on the surrounding area. It is notable that the building height is comparable with 44 Esplanade (Ogiers) and 37 Esplanade (former Swansons site).

c) Architectural Design and Use of Materials	The submitted Design Statement explains how the architecture has evolved to deliver a high quality building which accords with the principles set out in the Design Code for Commercial Buildings (Section 17.2) and the guidance on Building Materials and Palette. One of the points raised as a potential deviation from the Design Code is the lack of a roof garden. In this regard the applicant has presented a case that the plant has to be located at the roof level to deliver the air source heat pumps that assist in achieving the BREEAM Excellent target, and that the approach has been to take account of the design implications of rooftop plant at the early stages of the process, to ensure it is not visible. The applicant also points out that the Design Code makes recommendations and the application would still deliver in accordance with the objective of no roof plant being visible. The proposals were presented to the Jersey Architecture Commission in September 2012 and the Commissioners considered that this was a sophisticated and well considered building both in concept and in detail with a high degree of complexity. The Commissioners questioned but were ultimately satisfied with the treatment proposed for the roof plant. The Commissioners were of the view that the building would set an appropriately high benchmark for quality within the Esplanade Quarter. They considered the building to represent a sophisticated composition which would represent a step-change in quality on the Waterfront.

d) Impact In the Landscape/Street	The scale and form of the building is as anticipated in the Amended Masterplan, and whilst the building is large in scale, the impacts in the street and in mid-distance views (such as when arriving from the west) will be limited by the comparable scale of the adjacent buildings. In short, the backdrop of other office buildings ensure that this is not out of scale in its context.

e) Impact on Neighbours	The neighbours are primarily commercial buildings and although there may be flats at the upper levels of some of the properties on the Esplanade, the scale of the development in the subject application (and hence the impacts from that scale) are long established by other planning decisions. Aside from impacts resulting from scale, the changes to the traffic circulation patterns (particularly to and from the replacement car parking) has the potential to impact on neighbours. The revised traffic routes would remain within commercial areas, and any potential impacts are therefore not considered unreasonable. There would remain the potential for disturbance during the construction phase (from noise / dust / vibration etc) but this is not an overly sensitive site and as with other comparable projects any impacts could be mitigated by a Construction Environmental Management Plan to control hours of works and ensure compliance with Best Practice.

f) Access, Car Parking & Highways Considerations	Access to the basement office car park would be in roughly the same location as the current entry / exit point to the car park on Castle Street. The car parking displaced from the existing 525 space car park would be relocated on the south side of La Route de la Liberation. The application presents this solution as temporary, but there is no end-date, with the provision running as long as there remains a need to maintain the overall 525 space capacity (ie. until later phases are delivered). The delivery of the replacement car parking is considered technically sound, subject to details which could be controlled by conditions if permission is forthcoming. The position vis-à-vis other elements of the Masterplan, including sinking the road, is discussed in later sections of this Report. Servicing is proposed to be via the basement, although it is acknowledged that a small proportion of service trips may have to be with large vehicles and so facilitated off the Esplanade. A service bay does not seem to have been incorporated into the hard landscape proposals, and it is recommended further consideration be given to this – potentially to include servicing via the retained surface car park.

g) Foul Sewage & Surface Water Disposal	The network has capacity to accommodate this development, although flow rates may need to be limited (in agreement with TTS Drainage) as the network currently takes ‘surcharges’ during high rainfall.

h) Landscaping	The ornamental planting in the car park is to be removed and replaced with a hard landscape scheme to the north and east of the building. To the south and the west there are to be open landscaped areas, provided on a temporary basis pending the development of further phases. The landscape provision accords with the design coding in the Masterplan, and represents a ‘proportionate’ contribution towards the overall Masterplan objectives, including (for example) the tree-lined boulevard along the Esplanade. The site for the replacement car parking is shown with an indicative planting scheme, and this will need to be supplemented to ensure a high quality solution, albeit acknowledging the provision may not exist in the long term.

i) Archaeology	There are no archaeological issues as this is reclaimed ground.

j) Waste Management	The key issue with waste is in relation to site excavations. The submitted Design Site Waste Management Plan identifies that due to the nature of the reclaimed land, the excavated materials are generally intended to be taken to La Collette. 20% may be recyclable, and on the basis of 9,300 m3, minus 20% the excavations represent about one month’s ‘fill’ at current La Collette rates. A preliminary Waste Management Plan provides an acceptable framework for the development of a live document, if permission is forthcoming, to be produced by principal contractors.

k) Planning Obligations & Percent for Art	Percentage for Art is detailed in the Design Statement and the key works are to the ground floor windows adjacent to the colonnade. If permission is forthcoming, a Planning Obligation Agreement will be needed to deliver the financial contribution requested by TTS Highways towards a package of highways and transport measures.

l) Contaminated Land	The consultation response from Environmental Protection notes this is a potentially complex matter, and that the technical work in relation to potential contaminated land has been put into the post-determination phase and expresses disappointment that there has not been more progress made to assist in informing the situation. That said, they provide a useful review of the conditions on the outline permission and suggest a framework, updated as necessary, to take forward as conditions on a detailed permit if permission is forthcoming.

m) Sustainability	The earlier sections of this Report identify and acknowledge the ‘sustainability’ benefits of the proposal, in relation to the economy and the environment. The site has long been identified for this type of development and the detailed scheme has strong environmental credentials and, if delivered, would be the first office in Jersey to meet the BREEAM ‘excellent’ standard.

n) Other Matters	Commercial Competition A total of 5 parties have made representations objecting to the proposed development. All those parties, save the Societe Jersiaise, enjoy existing consent for office development in close proximity to Esplanade Quarter which remain undeveloped, and so can be said to have a commercial interest in the future of this site as a potential new office and financial centre. In effect they are commercial competitors to SoJDC, and each-other. At this juncture, whilst not examining the points that are made in their representations, it is necessary to clarify (as has indeed been stated for the earlier schemes) that it is not the role of the planning process to establish preferences in favour of a particular scheme, or indeed compare the benefits of each scheme. Each application is considered on its own merits, on the basis of the policies within the Island Plan, taking account of all material considerations. Status of SoJDC This is not a material planning consideration, and (as stated above) all applications are considered on their own merits, irrespective of the applicant.

14. Conclusion	The representations received for the application present a range of concerns, from strategic matters, to smaller details. The applicant has provided a detailed response to each letter of representation. All this correspondence is included as background papers and it is important that the letters are read in conjunction with this Report to give a complete picture. Although the objections to the scheme have gone into some detail individually, there is no substantial public objection to the scheme. This is significant. The process of public involvement and participation from the outset in 2006 when the Jersey Waterfront SPG was completed to the approval of the outline consent and the Public Inquiry was extensive. Before turning to matters of detail, there are two issues that require review. The first is the relationship of the present scheme to the Masterplan and other policy issues and the second is the materiality of the existing outline planning consent and the Planning Obligation Agreement (POA). MASTERPLAN In relation to the first matter it is necessary to put the current proposals in context with the policy framework and background. There are a number of key documents which have a bearing on the current proposals, as is referenced earlier in this Report. These documents provide a family of policy guidance and are all material considerations in the consideration of the present proposals. The Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter and the Jersey Waterfront SPG are identified within the Island Plan as being the "principal material considerations" in the determination of planning applications. The point is made by some of the objectors that the Minister is obliged to take into account any relevant guidance and policies he may have published. This is correct but it is not the sole matter the Minister needs to address in determining the application. The nature of that guidance and the particular circumstances of the case also form part of his consideration. The Masterplan for Esplanade Quarter was approved after significant public consultation. Its principal objectives are to: • Integrate the town with the Waterfront • Create a distinctive mixed-use quarter of quality • Provide a new office quarter • Provide new homes • Create new public space • Broaden the tourism and visitor offer. The outline planning application subsequently approved was virtually a mirror image of the Masterplan. The Masterplan was subsequently amended in 2011 to take account of changing circumstances and to reflect emerging trends, particularly in the demand for office floorspace. This response to change and market demand whether it be in office or residential markets represents a key component of all masterplanning. They are capable of being responsive to changing circumstances without losing sight of their long-term objectives. In this case at the time the amendment was agreed by the Minister in 2011 changes were being driven by office demand and the understanding that the sunken road could not be achieved as the first phase of development. The long-term objectives all remained intact but to deliver them required alterations to phasing and layout. As the applicant points out in their responses to the letters of representation, the Masterplan is not intended to be a strait-jacket. The current application must sit comfortably within the policy framework if it is the first step to the full conclusion of the Esplanade Quarter, or indeed if it is the only element that ever gets constructed. The Masterplan has always envisaged a demand-led approach to the construction, and the need for pragmatism and flexibility has been illustrated with the previous adoption of amendments to the initial approach. The current proposals do not take forward the phasings proposed within the original Masterplan but equally they do not vary its objectives and are compliant with its aspirations and do not prevent the realisation of the original Masterplan objectives. If it were a condition of development on the Esplanade Quarter that, for example, no development should take place without the road first being buried, then development of any sort would face a substantial restraint – in any event such a scenario does not exist. The Inspector at the Public Inquiry observed that it was only through the development of significant office space that the larger infrastructural investment (sinking the road) can be afforded. Notwithstanding the change in phasing now proposed this principle still stands and if and when the road is sunk the cost will be borne financially through the returns from development of high quality office floorspace. Claims that only offices are being provided ignore the very practical question of how else might the sinking of the road be funded. Criticism is made of the single use proposed and the conflict with the Masterplan in one of its key objectives to provide a mixed-use development. There was significant discussion at the Public Inquiry in connection with the prospect of a damaging effect on St Helier should there be unlimited retail development within Esplanade Quarter. As a result the quantity of retail space was limited. Opportunities are likely to arise later in the development of the site. The opportunities to provide residential accommodation later in the development (as was the case within the outline approval) are not being foregone nor prejudiced by the present scheme. This principle also applies to the tourism and visitor facilities. The current application is not contrary to the visions and aspirations contained within the hierarchy of policy documents, and the application does not run contrary to the vision and structure of the Masterplan. RELATIONSHIP WITH OUTLINE PERMISSION In relation to the second matter for further appraisal is the relationship between the current application and the 2010 outline approval and its attendant Planning Obligation Agreement (POA). The 2010 outline planning consent is a material consideration in the assessment of this current application. However, the conditions that were framed around that consent and the POA apply specifically to that scheme approved at that time. Earlier in this report the point was made that the present application is compliant with the Masterplan. It simply represents a different way of arriving at the same destination. The original proposals began by burying the road and a gradual development from east to west. No completion date was given as the expectation was that it would be a gradual build out, to a large extent controlled by demand. To that extent it is not appropriate nor is it reasonable to assume that the conditions appropriate to the 2010 consent, or the terms of the POA, will simply be transposed onto the present application which has material differences in the manner in which it approaches development. Some matters may be ‘common’ but this application is plainly not the approval of the reserved matters under the outline permission – it is a new application, which must be judged on its own merits. It may need appropriate conditions and a new POA, to address the particular circumstances and nature of the present scheme. Numerous references are made in the representations about the extent to which the present application responds or fails to respond to the conditions and the terms of the POA which surround the 2010 planning consent. Matters such as roof gardens and parking provision gain a mention amongst others. This approach misconstrues the manner in which the present application relates to the previous consent and the POA. The present application is relatively limited in terms of its range and extent in comparison to the 2010 approval. As a result it will not carry (nor is it appropriate for it to do so) all the conditions previously applied. Any permission may need to include conditions appropriate to its character and scale. However, it should not adopt or assume a set of conditions or a POA designed to enhance a consent which has identical aspirations but which delivers those aspirations in a different manner and sequence. ASSESSMENT This proposal is for a high-quality building, which has received the endorsement of the Minister's independent advisors in relation to architecture and design (the Jersey Architecture Commission). It is appropriately sited, and of a scale which causes no unreasonable harm to the streetscene or local amenities. The scale and form has also been tested in the 3D model, to appraise wider views, and is considered acceptable. In relation to detailed matters, the question of plant on the roof has been raised, and an integrated design approach is delivered floor as part of the original design concept, and enables environmental initiatives (air source heat pumps), so is entirely in line with the Minister's guidelines. The treatment of the sea wall was discussed at length in the Public Inquiry in 2008 and consent was granted subject to conditions. The present proposals do not vary from that approach and can again be controlled by conditions. Consultees have raised some matters of technical detail, including in relation to highways matters, and the continuing need to deal with the land contamination and waste. These issues can all be dealt with by conditions, as was the approach in the earlier outline approval and in other comparable applications. In summary, this is a very strong architectural composition which accords with the objectives of the Masterplan, and hierarchy of other policy matters, and represents the first step in bringing forward the wider objectives of the Esplanade Quarter project.

15. Department Recommendation	APPROVE It is recommended that the Minister endorses the recommendation, subject to conditions as set out below, and subject to the completion of a Planning Obligation Agreement within 3 months of the date of the determination, to secure the financial contribution towards a package of highways and transport measures as identified by the TTS Highways consultation response. If the Planning Obligation agreement is not completed then the Department recommend the Director of Planning is given delegated authority to refuse the application.

16. Conditions with reasons (in italics)	1. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until details of the appointed Landscape Architect have been agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment and the appointed Landscape Architects shall have submitted to and have approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, a scheme of landscaping which shall provide details of the following; i) all existing trees, hedgerows and other plants, walls, fences and other features which it is proposed to retain on the site and on adjoining land within the same ownership; ii) the position of all new trees and/or shrubs, this must include the species of plant(s)/tree(s) to be planted, their size, number and spacing and the means to be used to support and protect them; iii) other landscape treatments to be carried out or features to be created, for example, any excavation works, surfacing treatments, or means of enclosure; iv) the measures to be taken to protect existing trees and shrubs; and, v) the arrangements to be made for the maintenance of the landscaped areas. For the avoidance of doubt the scheme of landscaping shall include for increased planting within the temporary car park on the south side of La Route de la Liberation and include details of all hard landscape to include the segregation of cyclists and pedestrians in marked areas; all street furniture; roads and footpaths; areas of hardstanding; areas of public open space; flood protection measures; and, car park ramps. To ensure that before development proceeds provision is made for a landscaping regime that will enhance the appearance of the development and help to assimilate it into the landscape and to deliver a high quality development in accordance with Policies SP7, BE2 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2013. ________________________ 2. All planting and other operations comprised in the landscape scheme hereby approved shall be carried out and completed prior to first occupation of any element of the development. To ensure the benefits of the landscape scheme are not delayed, in the interests of the amenities of the area and to deliver a high quality development in accordance with Policies SP7, BE2 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2013. ________________________ 3. Prior to the commencement of development, a report setting out the arrangements for the management of the landscaped areas shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, and that that any trees or plant(s) planted in accordance with the approved landscape scheme, which within a period of five years from the planting taking place; die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season, unless the Minister for Planning and Environment gives written consent for a variation of the scheme. To mitigate against the potential failure of trees and plants, and the extent to which that might threaten the success of the approved landscape scheme and to deliver a high quality development in accordance with Policies SP7, BE2 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2013. ________________________ 4. Prior to the commencement of development, a report setting out the arrangements for maintaining free and unrestricted public access to the landscaped areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be implemented in full prior to first occupation, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. To deliver a high quality development in accordance with Policies SP, BE2 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2013. ________________________ 5. No development shall take place until a scheme of foul drainage and surface water drainage (to include flow rates, and to cover the surface drainage of the relocated surface car park) has been submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The approved scheme shall be completed before the development is first brought into use. To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements in accordance with Policy GD2 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 6. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details including manufacturers specification and the proposed location of petrol interceptors for the temporary car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented in full prior to first occupation of any element of the application site, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements in accordance with Policy GD2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and in the interests of preventing contamination, in accordance with Policy GD6, BE2 and NR1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 7. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details of permeable paving / SUDS to be applied to all hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented in full prior to first occupation of any element of the application site, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements in accordance with Policy GD2, GD2 and LWM2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 ________________________ 8. Prior to the development commencing a full BREEAM pre-assessment demonstrating that 'BREEAM Excellent' can be met by the development must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The pre-assessment must be drawn up by an appropriately qualified assessor. The development must then be carried out in accordance with the details specified in the approved assessment. Within six months of the first occupation of the building a post construction review shall be submitted - again drawn up by an appropriately qualified assessor - demonstrating that 'BREEAM Excellent' has been achieved. In the interests of sustainable development and energy efficiency, in accordance with Policy SP2 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 9. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented and thereafter maintained, of a Green Travel Plan covering the management of travel movements to and from the site. The Methodology for the Green Travel Plan shall cover a period of at least 10-years and shall first have been agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment, and shall include provision for charging points for electric cars and electric cycles, and the provision of electric vehicles for the operational use of tenants. No office accommodation shall be occupied until a Travel Plan coordinator has been appointed and their details forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of promoting sustainable patterns of development, and to accord with Policies TT9, BE2 and SP6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 10. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details including manufacturers specification of the proposed air source heat pumps shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented in full prior to first occupation of any element of the application site, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. To ensure satisfactory drainage arrangements in accordance with Policy GD2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and in the interests of delivering renewable energy in accordance with Policy NR7 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 11. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented and thereafter maintained, of a Skills and Training Plan, to support the development and training needs of Island residents. The Methodology for the Skills and Training Plan shall first have been agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of promoting sustainable patterns of development and supporting economic growth and diversification, and to accord with Policy GD1, BE2 and SP5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 12. A Percentage for Art contribution must be delivered in accordance with the Percentage for Art Statement submitted to, and approved by, the Minister for Planning and Environment. The approved work of art must be installed prior to the first use/occupation of any part of the development hereby approved. To accord with the provisions of Policy GD8 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 13. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of the provisions and arrangements to be made for the storage, sorting, recycling, collection and disposal of operational office refuse must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity. To ensure that waste and refuse is stored and disposed of without harming the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the surrounding area, in accordance with Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Island Plan, 2011. ________________________ 14. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details of the relocated public recycling facilities currently at the Esplanade car park shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter made available in full prior to first occupation of any element of the application site, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of providing adequate recycling facilities in accordance with Policy WM5 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 15. Notwithstanding the information on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of development, full details of the proposed off-street servicing, including designated parking bays, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter made available in full prior to first occupation of any element of the application site, and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. In the interests of providing adequate service infrastructure, in accordance with Policy GD2 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 16. Notwithstanding the indications on the approved plans, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, full details of all external materials to be used to construct the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity. To ensure a high quality of design and in accordance with Policies SP7, BE2 and GD7 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 17. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, details shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, implemented and thereafter maintained, setting out the arrangements for Waste Management in relation to the proposed excavation. Following completion of the excavation, and prior to commencement of construction, a Waste Management Completion Report shall be submitted to the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of securing waste minimisation, and to accord with Policy WM1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 18. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment which shall thereafter be implemented in full until the completion of the development. The Plan shall include an implementation programme of mitigation measures to minimise any adverse effects of the proposal, and shall include: A. A demonstration of best practice in relation to noise and vibration control; and control of dust and emissions; B. Details of a publicised complaints procedure, including office hours and out-of-hours contact numbers; C. Specified hours of working (to include that work resulting in noise being heard outside the application boundary occurs only between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no noisy working outside these times, and no noisy work on Bank or Public Holidays); D. Details of any proposed crushing / sorting of waste material on site; E. Details of the proposed management of traffic and pedestrians (to include for vehicle wheel washing); F. Measures taken to detect and manage any asbestos; G. Proposed piling methods; H. Any arrangements for dewatering. In the interests of protecting the amenities of the area to accord with Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and in the interests of preventing contamination, in accordance with Policy GD6, BE2 and NR1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 19. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted the visibility lines must be provided for 50m at a point 2.4m back from the entrance to the basement car park. Everything within the visibility sight lines, including gates, walls, railings and plant growth is to be permanently restricted in height to 900mm above road level. Any vehicle barrier or control point must be a minimum of 8m from the roadside kerb edge and prior to the commencement of development details of any traffic light control system should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. In the interests of delivering suitable vehicle infrastructure, in accordance with Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 20. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be implemented in full prior to first occupation and retained in perpetuity thereafter. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment all external lighting must be erected and directed in accordance with the Institution of Lighting Engineers Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Light Pollution 1994 (revised). In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 21. Prior to the commencement of development details of the CCTV installations shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be implemented in full prior to first occupation and retained in perpetuity thereafter. In the interests of the amenities of the area and in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 22. Prior to the occupation of the development, a Flood Risk Assessment as applicable to the application site shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, with any recommendations implemented prior to first occupation and thereafter maintained in perpetuity. The Methodology for the Flood Risk Assessment shall first have been agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of ensuring adequate service infrastructure in accordance with the requirements of Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011 ________________________ 23. Prior to the occupation of the development, a scheme for Air Quality Monitoring during the construction phase shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter maintained until first occupation. The Methodology for the Air Quality Monitoring shall first have been agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment, and shall include provision for remedial actions in the event that air quality drops below reasonable levels to be agreed in advance with the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of ensuring adequate air quality in accordance with Policy NR3 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 24. Prior to commencement of the development hereby permitted, a programme of recording and analysis of the elements of the sea wall to be removed, to the terms of a brief to be supplied by the Department, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, to be thereafter implemented. In the interests of the historic environment in accordance with Policy HE1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 25. Prior to the commencement of any work on site which shall affect the sea wall, a Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment itemising the procedures to be followed for works to the sea wall, including the elements of the wall which are to be relocated. All the specified works are to be undertaken prior to further occupation of any element of the development and are to be maintained in perpetuity thereafter. In the interests of the historic environment in accordance with Policy HE1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 26. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment, the replacement car parking on the south side of La Route de la Liberation shall be surfaced, demarcated, drained, accessible and in all other regards operational, prior to the loss of any car parking spaces within the existing Esplanade car park. The replacement car parking is approved on temporary basis only, to ensure a balance of 525 public spaces is maintained across the two sites. The temporary car parking shall cease to operate when 525 spaces have been re-introduced to the Esplanade site. At all times the number of operational spaces across the two sites shall comprise 525 public car spaces and 100 public motorcycle spaces (excluding the basement provision in the subject building). The replacement car parking shall be made available for general public users on the same terms (in relation to charging mechanisms, length of stay and operating hours) as the existing Esplanade car park. In the interests of securing adequate car parking provision, in accordance with Policy TT10 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 27. Prior to the commencement of development drawings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to show the location of public parking facilities for 20 additional bicycles, with that provision being implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. In the interests of securing adequate bicycle parking provision, in accordance with Policy TT4 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 28. Prior to the commencement of development a technical note shall be provided to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to model the capacity of the junction of Castle Street and the Esplanade. Until such a time as that information has been provided, the details of the junction (including the potential for a slip lane between Castle Street and the Esplanade and the consequential alterations to the landscape scheme), are reserved for future consideration by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The Methodology for the technical note shall first have been agreed with the Minister for Planning and Environment. In the interests of securing adequate access and service infrastructure in accordance with Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 29. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed drawing (at no less than 1:20 scale) to show the entrance to the temporary car park at the junction of La Rue de L’Etau, specifically the geometry necessary to facilitate exit in both an easterly and westerly direction, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment to be thereafter implemented prior to first use and maintained in perpetuity. In the interests of securing adequate access and service infrastructure in accordance with Policy GD1 and BE2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 30. Prior to the commencement of development the levels of potential contaminants in the ground shall be investigated and any risks to human health or the wider environment assessed and mitigated, to the satisfaction of and in accordance with the requirements of Supplementary Planning Guidance Planning Advice Note 2 – Development of Potentially Contaminated Land. This will include: Phase 2 work to provide up-to-date site investigations and shall include ground conditions, soil, gas and groundwater data; and Phase 3 Remediation and / or Risk Management, with Completion Report and Certificate to be issued prior to first occupation of any element. Where required by the Minister, the completion report shall also include a plan for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the Minister. For the avoidance of doubt the scope of all work must being agreed in writing in advance with the Minister for Planning and Environment and shall also include the site of the temporary car park. To ensure the development does not have an unreasonable impact on public health or the wider environment and to accord with Policy GD1, BE2, and GD6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 31. Notwithstanding the conclusions reached within site investigation work, should any contamination be found during the course of development hereby approved, work shall cease and the Minister for Planning and Environment contacted immediately. To ensure the development does not have an unreasonable impact on public health or the wider environment and to accord with Policy GD1, BE2, and GD6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. ________________________ 32. Prior to the commencement of development a Hydro-Geological Model shall be prepared for the site to fully understand the implications of the development on groundwater conditions. No development shall take place until details of this and any mitigation measures have been submitted to and approved by the Minister as part of a detailed application, with the mitigation measures to be implemented prior to first occupation and maintained in perpetuity thereafter. For the avoidance of doubt the scope of all work must being agreed in writing in advance with the Minister for Planning and Environment To ensure any long term impact of the scheme on groundwater conditions is clearly understood and any mitigation measures identified and to accord with Policy GD1, BE2, NR1 and GD6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. _________________________ 33. On the conclusion of all detailed site investigations, the groundwater quality data and a groundwater quality change model shall be submitted to the Minister for Planning and Environment, and prior to the commencement of any development a programme of groundwater analysis and sampling shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Minister for Planning and Environment for whole construction phase. For the avoidance of doubt the applicant shall fund and allow reasonable independent audit water sampling on site by the Minister for Planning and Environment whenever the Minister deems this to be appropriate. To ensure any long term impact of the scheme on groundwater conditions is clearly understood and any mitigation measures identified and to accord with Policy GD1, BE2, NR1 and GD6 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. _________________________ INFORMATIVE For the avoidance of doubt, this planning permission does not authorise the display of any signage or advertisements, or the installation of any external plant and machinery except where specific provision is made in the above conditions.

17. Reason for Approval	The proposed development is considered to be acceptable having due regard to the Jersey Island Plan 2011 and all of the other material considerations raised. In particular, the development has been assessed against Policies SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, SP5, SP6, SP7, GD1, GD2, GD4, GD5, GD6, GD7, GD8, GD9, NE1, HE5, BE1, BE2, BE5, BE10, EO1, TT4, TT7, TT8, TT9, TT10, NR1, NR7, WM1, WM5, LWM2 and LWM2 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. In addition, the development has been assessed against the Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2006), Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter (April 2008), Masterplan Amendment (March 2011) and the Esplanade Quarter Design Code (September 2008) In this case, the proposed development is regarded as acceptable having balanced an assessment of the objectives of the various individual policies, and the Supplementary Planning Guidance documents. The Minister acknowledges the application delivers a proportionate amount of the Masterplan objectives, and does not preclude the full delivery of the Masterplan objectives in future phases of development. In addition, the representations raised to the scheme have been carefully assessed. The Minister acknowledges the representations and has weighted them against the benefits delivered by the application. Taken as a package, the Minister believes the application to be a positive benefit, and that the potential impacts will not be unreasonable in all the circumstances.

18. Background Papers	1:2500 Location Plan All consultation responses, letters of representation and responses from the applicant. The suite of other relevant documents will be available to the Minister, comprising: All the application documentation and drawings; Waterfront Supplementary Planning Guidance (April 2006), Masterplan for the Esplanade Quarter (April 2008), Masterplan Amendment (March 2011) Esplanade Quarter Design Code (September 2008) Copy of Inspectors Report, decision notice and POA for PP/2008/1680

Endorsed by:	Date: 9 April 2013