Island Plan 2011 Revised Draft Revision

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While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.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 on 2 May 2014:

Decision Reference: MD-E-2014-0037
Decision Summary Title :	P.37/2014 Island Plan 2011: Revised Draft Revision – Approval - Amendment		Date of Decision Summary:	01 May 2014
Decision Summary Author:	Strategy Manager		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.37/2014 Island Plan 2011: Revised Draft Revision – Approval - Amendment		Date of Written Report:	01 May 2014
Written Report Author:	Strategy Manager		Written Report : Public or Exempt? (State clauses from Code of Practice booklet)	Public
Subject: P.37/2014 Island Plan 2011: Revised Draft Revision – Approval - Amendment
Decision(s): The Minister decided to lodge ‘au Greffe’ and Amendment to P.37/2014 Island Plan 2011: Revised Draft Revision - Approval.
Reason(s) for Decision: To enable an Amendment to P.37/2014 Island Plan 2011: Revised Draft Revision – Approval to be lodged ‘au Greffe’.
Resource Implications: There are no financial or manpower implications for the States.
Action required: Strategy manager to forward the Amendment to the States Greffe with a request that it be lodged ‘au Greffe’ as soon as practicable.
Signature: Senator AJH Maclean		Position: Minister for Economic Development
Date Signed: 2nd May 2014		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Island Plan 2011 Revised Draft Revision - Approval: Amendment

ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014): ## AMENDMENT

PAGE 2

After the words “the revised draft revision to the Island Plan 2011” insert the words “except that the amendments to Proposal 4a and Policies NE6 and NE7 (pages 73 to 102 of the draft Revision) shall be deleted.”

MINISTER FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

REPORT

The Minister for Planning and Environment is seeking to alter the Coastal National Park (NE6) and Green Zone (NE7) Policies in the Island Plan, therefore affecting all properties in Jersey’s countryside. The changes are considered to have as equally damaging implications as Policy H3 (affordable housing) would have had had the Minister not agreed to withdraw it.

However, this time the damage will not just be on the construction industry and the inability to provide affordable housing for the less affluent citizens of the island. Instead, the damage will be inflicted on ‘Middle-Jersey’.

Reference to the Island Plan will show that circa 90% of the island is either in the Coastal National Park, but mostly in the Green Zone, and within which a large proportion of the island’s population live. This therefore explains why the new polices will affect so many islanders.

In short, the policies will restrict how much existing properties in the countryside (both residential and commercial) can be extended by and, also, prevent the development of a new house to replace an existing house (or other existing building) if it becomes larger.

This will have the following implications:

Infringement on individual’s rights to improve and upgrade their property.
Discourage the replacement of existing substandard buildings with more sustainably built buildings.
Reduction in the value of property in the Coastal National Park and the Green Zone.
Reduction in value of commercial property owing to a limited exit strategy, and resulting in poor financial leverage for existing businesses.
Increase in the cost of land in the Built-up area, as being the only zone where property would be capable of being enlarged to any significant degree.
Significant reduction in work for small to medium size building contractors and sub-contractors in the construction industry and, therefore, a rise in unemployment.
Significant reduction in work for architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, interior designers etc. and, therefore, a rise in unemployment
Inability to promote Jersey to high net-worth residents.

It is considered that the existing policies relating to the Coastal National Park and the Green Zone, with the presumptions set against all forms of new development, suitably protects the countryside, but giving sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate development.

This is a case where policies might be approved under the radar without a full understanding of the severe implications they will have on islanders’ individual rights and the impact on the wider economy.

Indeed, it seems a particularly inappropriate time to inflict these policies on the island when ‘green shoots’ are starting to appear in the island’s economy. These polices will only serve to set the construction industry back and cause unemployment within this important economic sector.

It then also seems inconsistent for these new policies to now prevent the redevelopment of redundant and derelict glasshouse sites when the current Island Plan recognises them as the island’s only brownfield sites and current policy ERE7 allows for the sensitive redevelopment of these sites, resulting in substantial environmental improvements.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States