BEL ROYAL DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
FIELDS 848, 851, 853, 854, 861, 862A and 863A, Bel Royal, St. Lawrence
Report of
The Minister
For
Planning and Environment
Senator Freddie Cohen
May 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The purpose of this report is to deliver my decision on the current planning application for the site in question (ref. P/2006/2489). My findings are based on an impartial review of the proposed development, all the oral and written representations made in favour and against it, my previous considerations, the report of the case officer, the Island Plan and all other material planning considerations. My decision was made on 21st March 2007.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 The principle of developing the site for Category A homes was approved by the States under Policy H2 of the Island Plan in July 2002. In accordance with the Island Plan, a ‘Development Brief’ was approved to guide the development of the site in May 2004 and the guidance offered in that brief has been modified and has evolved over the course of a very long and complex planning process by negotiation, discussion and previous decisions made by former committees and myself.
2.2 This is the third application for the development of the site. The first application was for, among other things, 140 homes and was found to be unacceptable to the former Committee in August 2005. The previous application for 129 homes was determined by me in August 2006 following a Public Hearing. On that occasion, I refused planning permission for five main reasons, related to:
Over-development of the site (including the related traffic impact);
Encroachment of development beyond the designated housing site boundary;
The unsatisfactory nature of the building designs and notably the need for more local relevance;
The inadequate capacity of local States schools; and
The potential exposure of the new homes to unacceptable noise nuisance from the operations of Jersey Steel.
2.3 Since that decision, both I and the Planning Department have offered steers to the applicants, primarily in relation to the number of homes that might be acceptable and how their designs might be addressed to better reflect my published design principles.
2.4 The current application is for 102 Category ‘A’ homes, comprising 97 family homes and 5 sheltered / lifetime homes. In addition, the scheme includes proposals for:
Road widening and improvements to St. Peter’s Valley Road (including the provision of new roadside footways and a pedestrian refuge to aid road crossing);
Surface water drainage infrastructure (including on-site attenuation and a pumping station primarily intended to reduce the risk of flooding to existing properties);
A large ‘Public Amenity Space’;
A community hall; and
Children’s and teenagers’ play facilities.
2.5 The current application was recently revised to address inadequacies identified by the Planning Department and/or at the Public Meeting on 23rd January 2007, in relation to:
· Layout design principles;
· Parking provision;
· The failure to include sheltered / lifetime homes;
· The omission of the required footpath link to Sandybrook Lane;
· The designs for proposed new house types;
· The previously proposed surface water attenuation ponds.
2.6 In view of the controversy that continues to surround the development of this site, the protracted planning process for this major scheme and my involvement with the previous application, I considered it appropriate that I, as Minister for Planning and Environment, should once again personally determine the application.
2.7 To assist this process, I decided that the current application should also be heard in public. The ‘hearing’ took place on 20th March 2007 and allowed oral representations from objectors and the applicant. Prior to the hearing, I was supplied with and read the relevant paperwork
3. MAIN FINDINGS
3.1 Whilst I have noted the various points of detail raised by both objectors and applicants, it is my intention in this report to concentrate on addressing the main outstanding planning issues of contention, which are pertinent to the case. It is not my intention to revisit matters on which I have previously made a judgement, where no new significant material factors have been brought to light.
3.2 I would also take this opportunity to repeat what I said at the Public Hearing. We are not dealing here with a clean sheet. Many decisions have already been taken which must be properly and fairly taken into account in determining this application. The land in question has been zoned specifically to meet the Island’s identified housing needs and this fact, together with subsequent guidance provides a very clear indication of what the land is expected to be used for.
3.3 Before turning to my findings, I believe it appropriate that I should first dispel a few commonly held misconceptions about the site’s location. Contrary to the constant references in the local media, this application does not involve proposals to build houses on what is commonly understood to be ‘Goose Green Marsh’, to the south-west of Le Perquage. Nor is it proposed to build in the area which naturally floods to the south-east of Le Perquage. Indeed, the housing site is located on higher land to the north, immediately adjacent to the built-up area around Sandybrook, and comprises former agricultural fields used for the production of outdoor tomatoes, early potatoes and cauliflowers.
3.4 My findings are set out under the various sub-headings below, in no particular order.
Size of Development
3.5 This issue has remained one of the main concerns of local residents and their political representatives. It is argued that there are still too many homes and that this does not comply with the indicative yield of 97 homes referred to in the Island Plan, or with the recent decision of the States in July 2006 that the site should accommodate “a maximum of 97 homes”.
3.6 At the outset, I should address the latter mentioned decision of the States. I note the decision and fully respect the views of States Members that underpin it. However, as Minister for Planning and Environment, I must continue to judge planning applications on their individual planning merits. I would also acknowledge that, if this were a ‘blank sheet’ scenario and was not constrained by the Island Plan and other consequential decisions, it is possible that I would reach a different conclusion on this matter.
3.7 In my report on the previous application, I reasoned that the expression “approximately 97 homes” used in the Island Plan implies that any scheme should relate to the stated indicative yield of 97 homes. I then concluded that the previous proposals for 129 homes were, at 33% greater than the indicative yield, an unacceptable departure from the Island Plan.
3.8 I note that the current scheme for 102 homes represents a reduction of 27 homes from the previous application (-21%) and of 38 homes from the original application (-27%). As a consequence, the proposed number of homes is now only 5% above the indicative yield and is at the lower end of the precedents set by previously approved comparative sites. On this basis, I find that the current proposals bear a reasonable resemblance to the indicative yield in the Island Plan and cannot reasonably be regarded as an unacceptable departure.
Extent of Housing Development
3.9 One of my reasons for refusing the previous application was that the proposed housing development extended beyond the site specifically zoned for Category A housing and into an area designated as ‘Important Open Space’. In the accompanying report I argued that the housing site boundary agreed by the States should not be compromised and that it was unacceptable for the housing development and the associated road infrastructure and community building to fall outside the housing site boundary.
3.10 It is clear that the vast majority of the proposed built development is now within the designated housing site boundary. There is no longer any proposed encroachment beyond the southern boundary, as was previously approved by the former Planning Sub-Committee. However, there are a number of proposed developments to the east of the housing site boundary, including the vehicular access to the site, the community building, a 25 space car park, the play areas for children and teenagers, the corners of two domestic gardens and a small domestic parking courtyard. This area is currently designated as ‘public open space’, where the aim is to protect the area from development.
3.11 The objectors have highlighted these latter development proposals as being contrary to the Island Plan and to my previously stated position and have called for the designated housing site boundary to be fully respected.
3.12 I believe that this issue is now very much a matter of fact and degree. I previously had no problems with locating the children’s and teenagers’ play areas in this location, given that they are essentially open spaces, compatible with the open space designation, and are intended for use by existing as well as proposed residents. Nor did I have any problems with the 25 space car park, which is intended to serve the Public Amenity Area so increasing its accessibility and facilitating its use by the wider public. As far as the site access road is concerned, I note that it was located in this position in response to requests made during earlier public consultation, to maximise the distance between it and the existing junction of Rue de la Blanche Pierre, in the interests of highway safety. Furthermore, the access is intended to serve both the housing development and the ‘Public Amenity Area’ and has the advantage of allowing improved and rationalised access to the property adjacent Field 854. I therefore consider that there are reasonable planning arguments to justify these encroachments.
3.13 The proposed siting of the community hall outside the designated housing site boundary and in the area of ‘public open space’ is different from the aforementioned developments, in that it is a significant building and, as alluded to above, I had previously thought that this should be located within the housing site. However, having listened to the various arguments, it is clear that this building is intended for use by the wider community and not just the proposed new residents. It is also conceivable that the building could be used to complement the future use of the ‘Public Amenity Area’. In the circumstances, there is merit in locating the building close to the access road and where it can benefit from and share the amenity area car parking provision.
3.14 All the proposed houses are shown within the designated housing site boundary and the only remaining incursions beyond that boundary, which can be described as exclusively part of the housing development, are the corners of two private gardens and a small parking courtyard. These are of a relatively minor nature and I do not consider them to be materially significant, nor do I believe they would unreasonably affect the character and amenity of this part of the proposed ‘Public Amenity Area’, as it is conceived.
External Design of Homes
3.15 I was pleased to note that the form and elevational design of the proposed homes has attracted little criticism and, indeed, some positive feedback from objectors. I am totally committed to raising the standard of design for new buildings and found the previous application to be unsatisfactory in this regard. However, I consider the new proposed designs to be a major improvement. They take their cues from traditional buildings, forms and architectural details found elsewhere in the Island and, in doing so, achieve a good degree of local relevance.
Density of Development
3.16 Some objectors continue to argue that the density of the proposed development is too high and should be significantly reduced.
3.17 I am not a strong advocate of rigidly applying density standards as a means of controlling development, preferring instead to let good design determine appropriate housing yields. However, I do have strong views on the sorts of densities which should in future be applied to housing developments on peripheral sites. Notwithstanding those views, I must once again emphasise that I am not dealing with a clean sheet in this instance. The Island Plan and the development brief promote and encourage the efficient and effective use of land, subject to meeting various planning requirements, and this position has been consistently upheld by previous Committees throughout the protracted planning process.
3.18 That said I note that the ‘gross residential density’ of the current proposals for the site is relatively low at 56 habitable rooms per acre (hra) and below that of all but one of the other sites zoned for Category A housing in the Island Plan. The ‘net residential density’ figure is relatively high (74hra), because it is proposed to exclude housing development from a large proportion of the zoned site and retain this as a buffer to Le Perquage. However, this is still within long-standing recommended density standards for sites in or around the edges of the built up area (see Planning Policy Notes Nos. 5 and 6). I therefore conclude that the residential density of the scheme is acceptable.
Size of Proposed Family Homes
3.19 Some objectors argue that the proposed homes are too small, cramped and insufficiently spacious. Clearly, it is important to ensure that there is sufficient space in and around the proposed homes for the normal functioning of a family and, for Category ‘A’ homes in particular, this will often necessitate a sensible trade-off to achieve the required affordability.
3.20 The Planning Department has long operated minimum space standards, which act as a safety net in this regard (see Planning Policy Note No.6) and I note that from the outset, through the development brief process, the applicants have been encouraged to achieve higher internal space standards (at least +5%) to comply with emerging supplementary guidance as it was at that time.
3.21 All the proposed family homes (including Unit Type C when properly described as a 5 person home) are at least 5% greater in floor area than the current published minimum. The type A units are exactly 5% larger, types C1 and C2 (as re-described) are 12% larger and the remaining types are 14% larger (i.e. types B, D1 and D2). I also note that there are a wide variety in the sizes of the private gardens proposed for these properties and they all meet or exceed the published minimum space standard of 50m². In this regard, therefore, I find that the applicants have satisfied what is required of them by the development brief.
3.22 However, I am a strong advocate of producing larger, more spacious homes and this was one of my pledges to the electorate. Having noted the outstanding concerns about ground floor storage provision in the type A homes, I believe it would be reasonable to treat this as a reserved matter for later agreement. The floor areas of these units should, where feasible, be increased by at least some 2.2m² so that they too are at least 7.5% above the current published minimum floorspace requirement.
Tenure
3.23 The tenure mix of the current proposed homes is not stated and, in its formal response to the application, the Parish of St. Lawrence questions why the tenure split requirements in the Island Plan (i.e. for 45% social rented housing and 55% first-time buyer housing) appear to have been ignored.
3.24 As I explained during the recent Public Hearing, I will shortly be taking a proposition to the States, seeking to change the tenure requirements for Category ‘A’ housing sites, effectively by substituting the social rented element with ‘shared equity’ housing. This is one of my election pledges and would reflect the changing housing situation, the reduced demand for social rented homes and the States’ objective of promoting an increase in home ownership.
3.25 In the interim, I would be content that any planning conditions and obligations related to this matter should provide for compliance with either existing tenure requirements, as set out in the Island Plan, or any revised requirements agreed by the States, or by me, where I have satisfied myself that there is sufficient justification for doing so.
Sheltered Housing Provision
3.26 The original drawings for the current application omitted to include sheltered housing units, prompting objections from local residents, and revised drawings have since been submitted, which include five such units described as ‘lifetime homes’. At the recent public hearing, the objectors suggested that the revised proposals make inadequate provision for sheltered housing units, contrary to the requirements in the development brief. It was also suggested that this is at odds with recent pronouncements by the Housing Minister and I, regarding identified requirements for such accommodation.
3.27 I am aware that the development brief suggests the development should include 15-20 sheltered housing units and a warden’s home. However, as I mentioned at the outset of this paper, it is important to recognise that the brief is intended as a guide and has evolved since it was first approved over a protracted period by a process of negotiation and decision making. It is also pertinent that Island Plan Policy H12 requires all developments of twenty or more homes to normally ensure that at least 5% of housing units are fully accessible to meet the needs of the elderly and those with disabilities.
3.28 In effect, former Committees and I have considered a lower number of seven sheltered homes (around 5%) to be acceptable for the previous two applications (i.e. for 140 and 129 homes), having regard to:
The numerous similar types of accommodation provided nearby at L’Hermitage Gardens;
The proposed compliance with Island Plan Policy H12.
3.29 I recognise that the current proposal of 5 sheltered / lifetime homes again represents 5% of the reduced number of homes now proposed. However, in view of future requirements for such homes identified recently in the latest ‘Planning for Homes’ report, and the reduced impacts associated with such homes, I feel it is important, at this time, that I reserve my position on the number of such units.
3.30 The design and layout of the proposed sheltered / lifetime homes are presently unacceptable. I note the recommendation that this part of the scheme should not be approved and should instead be the subject of a planning condition for later agreement. Any such planning condition should look to ensure that the sheltered/lifetime homes are well designed and provide adequate space, good accessibility and good opportunities for appropriate adaption to meet the changing needs of occupants.
Environmental Impact of the Development
3.31 A number of objectors have again raised concerns that the proposed development will damage and/or destroy the wetland habitat and ecology of the marsh. This theme was taken up by objectors at the recent Public Hearing. The value of the landscape / ecological report supporting the application was questioned, arguing there was a lack of sufficient detail included on fauna and it was not fair to say the area was “of little environmental importance”. In support of this view, attention was drawn to the potential value of the marsh for wintering Brent Geese, during high tides and stormy weather, and its attractiveness to other migrant winter visitors, including Snipe and Water Pipits. The objectors concluded that this would best be addressed by an ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’.
3.32 I have already addressed the reasons why I do not consider it necessary to require an ‘Environmental Impact Assessment’ in my report on the previous application and will not repeat them here.
3.33 The ‘Landscape Ecological Review’ supporting this application was prepared by local landscape architects Michael Felton Ltd in consultation with a local ornithologist and the States Ecologist who are well placed to advice on ecological matters. It is my belief that the report generally does what was required of it, notably in:
· Using suitably qualified persons with appropriate conservation knowledge;
· assessing the ecological value of the proposed wetland amenity area;
· identifying opportunities and constraints; and
· providing a good basis for future landscaping and landscape management.
3.34 Having reviewed the evidence provided by the objectors, I do not believe it provides any significant new information. I note that references to the marsh being used by up to 250 Brent Geese actually refer to the area of back meadows extending along some 2 miles of coastline from Bel Royal to Belcroute. Furthermore, the only area referred to specifically as having concentrations of these geese in submitted e-mails from the Société Jersiaise is Goose Green Marsh, which is not to be developed.
3.35 I would be the first to acknowledge that a new housing development on open land above a wetland area will have an impact on the character and wildlife of the area. Such matters were clearly weighed in the balance, when the decision was taken to zone the site. However, the proposed housing development is confined to former agricultural land. The marsh area nearest the site would remain to all intents and purposes undisturbed by building works, and it is proposed to retain the marsh virtually as it is now. I am also confident that the low key landscaping proposals, which form an integral element of the application, combined with the surface water drainage proposals (which allow for periodic controlled flooding), would go a considerable way to enhancing the wildlife value and landscape character of the area surrounding the housing site. The reduction in the number of homes now planned and the area covered by those homes would also be helpful in this regard.
3.36 I do not, therefore, consider that there are sufficient grounds to alter my previous conclusions on the potential impact of the proposed development on wildlife and habitats in this area. Nor do I believe there is sufficient justification to require a further ecological assessment.
Impact on Le Perquage
3.37 A number of local residents have argued that the proposed development will have an adverse impact on Le Perquage and it was suggested at the public hearing that the proposed acoustic berm on Field 853 to the east and a new boundary fence for Jersey Steel’s to the west would create a “dark tunnel effect”.
3.38 The need to protect the character and tranquillity of Le Perquage Walk was recognised from the outset in the development brief. To this end, the brief calls for a buffer strip between Le Perquage and the proposed housing and suggests there would be merit in creating suitably planted mounds in this area, both to reduce the impact of the housing and the potential noise nuisance from Jersey Steel (see later comments on noise).
3.39 At present, the stretch of the Perquage Walk in question is approximately 11m wide. It is enclosed to the east, in large part, by mature trees (predominantly evergreen oaks), which form a canopy that already provides some obstruction of sky views and which afford incidental views across the fields beyond. Having studied the proposed development plan (Plan CG) and the sectional elevation between Jersey Steel and the proposed housing (Plan DO), I believe the proposed densely planted berm will be of benefit in helping to protect the character and amenity of Le Perquage. It would mitigate the impact of the proposed development by obscuring views of the proposed new housing and offering a more natural outlook from the Perquage Walk. I am also of the opinion that the proposed height and contouring of the berm, the distances involved and the alignment to the east of the Walk would not give rise to any detrimental loss of skylight or sunlight, or serve to create a “tunnel effect”.
3.40 I would accept that the new close-boarded boundary fence to Jersey Steel’s premises put forward by Health Protection for noise mitigation purposes would need to be carefully designed and located to reduce any adverse impact on le Perquage Walk. However, it should be borne in mind that the current unsightly views across Jersey Steel’s premises, including the large metal clad factory building and the expansive areas of open storage, already detract significantly from the character of the Walk. With careful attention to detail and alignment, it should be possible to come up with a suitable fence design. In order to minimise its impact on Le Perquage, I would anticipate that any application would look to set back any new fence away from the boundary (say 2m), in order to retain the existing ivy clad fence together with existing fir trees, hawthorns and other shrubs and provide opportunities for new / reinforcement hedge planting.
Loss of Trees along St. Peter’s Valley Road
3.41 A number of local residents remain concerned about the loss of the mature roadside trees along St. Peter’s Valley to the north of Field 851, and this was an issue at the recent Public Hearing. The trees in question include 12 oaks, one sycamore and an ash of varying condition, as set out in the submitted tree survey, which was conducted in consultation with the States arboriculturalist.
3.42 It was recognised in the development brief that these trees make a valuable contribution to the character of the landscape and to wildlife, but that they could potentially be lost to achieve acceptable vehicular access and essential associated road improvements. The former Planning Sub-Committee, at that time, took the view that highway safety must not be compromised and that the safety benefits associated with the roadworks were considered to outweigh the retention of the trees. This has remained the position throughout the protracted planning process and, as such, did not feature in my report on the previous application.
3.43 Notwithstanding the above, when the matter was raised at the Public Meeting on 23rd January 2007, I gave instructions for a reassessment of the position to establish whether or not there was any possibility that some or all of the trees might be saved. Regretfully, the response from Transport and Technical Services makes it all too clear that this is not possible, if we are to achieve essential road improvements for pedestrian safety, and a safe access for the site.
3.44 In the circumstances, I believe it would be essential to require the re-establishment of the wall, banque and tree feature on the proposed new road alignment and to re-plant with semi-mature trees of the same species.
Education
3.45 The inadequate capacity of local primary and secondary school accommodation feature once again in the letters of representation from local residents. This was also a theme in a letter from the Parish Deputy, which was read out at the recent Public Hearing. She queried when this information had been received and that it appeared to contradict statements made by the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture.
3.46 The inadequate capacity of local States schools to accommodate the likely extra pupil demand generated by the previously proposed development for 129 homes was one of my reasons for refusing that application.
3.47 Clearly, the potential child yield has diminished for the current application of 102 homes. I am advised in a letter from the Education Department of 11th December 2006, that the proposed development is expected to yield a total of 36 “new” children seeking entry to Bel Royal School and a further 16 seeking entry to Les Quennevais School. This compares to 42 and 18 respectively for the previous application and 32 and 14 respectively for a theoretical scheme of 97 homes. The Education Department has confirmed that, based on demographic trends, Bel Royal and First Tower Schools may be able to accommodate all the extra children seeking entry as a result of the proposed development and that by 2011, Bel Royal School alone may be able to accommodate all these extra children.
3.48 It seems likely that Les Quennevais School will remain at capacity for the foreseeable future, so the proposed development would necessitate up to 16 children within its current catchment area having to take up a place at Haute Vallée School.
3.49 In considering the school capacity situation, it is also important to have regard to the temporary nature of school capacity problems; the likelihood of falling primary school rolls; the considerable lifespan of the proposed homes; the benefits of locating housing close to a primary school and the range of measures available to the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture for ensuring full-time education for school aged children.
3.50 In view of the above, I do not believe there is sufficient justification to warrant refusing the existing application on the grounds of inadequate school capacity.
Traffic Impact
3.51 Local residents and their representatives remain concerned that the proposed development, combined with others in the west of the Island, will give rise to unacceptable traffic congestion along St. Peter’s Valley Road and at the junctions either end of Rue du Galet. This is an issue I covered in my report on the previous application, when I cited “unacceptable problems of traffic generation” as part of the reason why I considered that proposal for 129 homes represented unacceptable over-development of the site.
3.52 The current application is supported by a ‘transport assessment’ prepared by Peter Brett Associates and comments and advice are provided by Transport and Technical Services, who have taken into account the potential traffic impacts of recently approved developments elsewhere in the west of the Island.
3.53 To my mind, perhaps the most pertinent points to consider in deciding upon this issue are that:
· the current proposals represent a 21% reduction in the number of homes from the previous application;
· the proposed 102 homes bear a reasonable resemblance to the indicative yield of 97 homes referred to in the Island Plan; and
· there is a negligible difference in terms of traffic generation between the current proposals and a theoretical scheme for 97 homes.
3.54 In view of the above, I do not consider there is justification for refusing the application on traffic grounds. There are other factors, however, which lend weight to this position, as follows:
the relatively small potential traffic generation from the site, compared to the whole catchment area for St. Peter’s Valley Road;
the need to determine this application on the basis of the transport impact of the proposed development, rather than the accumulated impacts of other recently approved housing developments in the locality and in the west of the Island;
the particular advantages of the site from a sustainable transport perspective;
the proposals in the scheme aimed at encouraging more sustainable forms of transport (i.e. walking, cycling and bus travel);
the proposed requirement to provide “kick start” funding for two additional peak hour buses over a 5 year period;
the increasing recognition that traffic problems throughout the Island can most effectively be addressed by suitable strategic sustainable transport policies and proposals.
Drainage and Flooding
3.55 It is clear that a number of local residents consider the “flooding issue” remains unresolved. From the outset there has been a requirement for the applicants to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be susceptible to future flooding and that it would not result in flooding of existing property. In my report on the previous application, I set out the reasons why I was satisfied with the surface water drainage proposals and the proposed measures for mitigating potential flooding and I do not propose to repeat them here.
3.56 However, there were two points of detail regarding this issue that were raised at the Public Hearing and which warrant a response. It was argued by the objectors that, in order to avoid worsening the flooding situation at Sandybrook:
impounding ponds should be constructed up St. Peter’s Valley before any new development is approved;
there should be no loss of flood storage potential in Field 853, as would occur if the proposed berm is constructed.
3.57 The Planning Department has received advice from Transport and Technical Services on both of these matters. They advise that the flooding at Sandybrook, upstream of the proposed housing site, is a separate issue, which would not be impacted on by the proposed development. They say it occurs in extreme conditions of heavy rainfall when an excess of water arrives at Sandybrook, which cannot get through the existing culvert and that even if the impounding ponds were constructed, they would not offer any benefit in terms of reducing the risk of flooding in the marsh.
3.58 Transport and Technical Services has previously advised that the flooding which occurs in Field 853 is one of a number of areas of uncontrolled flooding along the Perquage watercourse, brought about because the banks of the stream have not been properly maintained and have eroded. They point out that required improvements to the banks and, indeed, the construction of the proposed berm, would assist in ensuring that uncontrolled flooding would be reduced in this area. They have also pointed out that the modelling work carried out Peter Brett Associates confirms:
· the capacity of the watercourse at the southern end of the Perquage is sufficient to accept the flows that are able to be passed forward from the Sandybook area;
· the proposed pumping station would be able to deal with this satisfactorily during tidelocked conditions;
· any lost floodwater storage as a consequence of the proposed development could be catered for by the proposed pumping station pumps (N.B. the required rate of pumping would be about 0.18 cumecs, whereas each proposed pump would have a capacity of approximately 0.5 cumecs).
3.59 In the circumstances, I do not believe the concerns raised above offer any grounds for refusing the current application. However, I do believe that a satisfactory drainage scheme must be put in place to cover the construction phase of the development, which ensures that the peak discharge rate of surface water from the housing site to the Perquage stream does not exceed that of the existing run-off from the fields. This can be addressed by planning condition.
Potential Noise Nuisance
3.60 The objectors argue that the issue relating to noise impact from Jersey Steel has not been satisfactorily resolved and point to the views expressed in correspondence from Health Protection in this regard. They say that the proposed homes would be exposed to unacceptable noise from the company’s activities and this is likely to result in complaints from future occupiers requiring prohibitive action against the company under the Statutory Nuisances Law.
3.61 It is clear that this issue has proved one of the most difficult to resolve throughout the whole planning process. At the time of the previous application, not content with the methodology of the applicant’s noise consultants, Health Protection employed their own… ‘Industrial Noise and Vibration Centre’ (INVC). They recommended the installation of automatic high speed roller shutter doors on the eastern entrance of the Jersey Steel factory to resolve the noise issue. Health Protection subsequently confirmed that this, together with filling the holes in the structural façade would “provide the necessary acoustic reassurance to overcome the outstanding concerns of noise nuisance”.
3.62 In determining that application, I was particularly concerned about the potential plight of Jersey Steel, the fact that it had not then been party to discussions on noise mitigation, and the possible operational and occupational problems that might arise as a consequence of installing roller shutter doors. This led me to conclude that “the proposed solutions to the noise impact issue have not been satisfactorily proven and, in particular, there are outstanding doubts as to whether the off-site mitigation measures can be implemented”. Consequently, this was one of my reasons for refusing the previous application.
3.63 There has been a lot of activity in this area over the intervening period and I feel it is necessary to summarise this, in order to provide the background for my decision on this matter.
3.64 The original plans for the current application were once again supported by two noise assessment reports based on average noise levels (LAeq) and maximum noise levels (LAmax) and the only proposed mitigation was an on-site acoustic berm. Furthermore, the applicants argue that the first of these reports demonstrates their proposals comply with UK Planning Guidance on Noise (PPG24, BS4142 and BS8233) and with Health Protection’s original specification. It is Health Protection, who are the body which advises the Planning Department on noise issues, that has requested the second acoustic assessment based maximum noise levels.
3.65 In drawing up its response to the noise issue, the applicants consulted directly with Jersey Steel, which, in turn, appointed its own noise consultants, Atkins, to review the reports. Atkins was of the view that the modelling was defective, that the noise bund would not offer sufficient mitigation and the proposals would not prevent future noise complaints. They concluded that Jersey Steel has every justification to resist the application in its current form, because of the risk to its on-going operation. Health Protection’s initial response was to confirm that it had not agreed with the noise assessment methodology and that its views were broadly in line with those of Atkins. They argued that the applicants had failed to address the noise issue satisfactorily and that the proposals would be unlikely to negate future noise complaints, making the site unsuitable for domestic dwellings.
3.66 In the light of this impasse, a meeting was arranged with all the relevant parties, including the applicants, Jersey Steel, Health Protection and the Planning Department, in order to agree the way forward. At that meeting, various potential noise mitigation options were generated and it was agreed that the applicant’s noise consultants should be appointed to study their effectiveness so that a package of measures could be put forward which offered a reasonable and proportionate response to the problem. The subsequent revised ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’ models nine mitigation options and puts forward a preferred package of measures, which includes:
· roller shutter doors on the east-facing entrance of the Jersey Steel Factory;
· a lean-to structure over the entrance;
· a 1.8m high close-boarded fence boundary fence to Jersey Steel; and
· the 5m high berm proposed for the housing site.
3.67 The report concludes that:
· none of the proposed homes would be exposed to exterior noise levels over 60dBLAmax when the roller shutter doors are closed;
· with the doors open, only two of the proposed homes would be exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60dBLAmax at ground level and 14 of the proposed homes at first-floor height;
· the 14 homes in question could be provided with various specific sound insulation measures to reduce interior noise to acceptable levels.
3.68 Having up-dated its noise monitoring at Jersey Steel, Health Protection then reiterated its concerns about the potential risks of future house occupants being exposed to Statutory Noise Nuisance. However, it does put forward a series of noise mitigation measures, which it considers to be the basic minimum required, should I be predisposed to approve the application, including:
automatic roller shutter doors (default closed) at Jersey Steel;
lean-to building at entrance to Jersey Steel;
3m high close-boarded boundary fence at Jersey Steel;
3m high berm with trees (close planted) on the site;
all eastward facing facades to have acoustic glazing and noise affected properties to have whole house ventilation;
all eastward facing boundary walls and fences to be a minimum height of 1.8m (close-boarded or solid construction);
all sound insulation measure stated in the latest ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’ to be implemented.
3.69 Interestingly, it also points out that, in the event of Statutory Noise Nuisance occurring in the future, it could not take action against Jersey Steel if the company can show a ‘Best Practice Means’ defence. It suggests, also, that the company might be able to do this by completion of the noise mitigation measures set out above.
3.70 Subsequent to this, Health Protection have provided advice on appropriate standards for acceptable noise levels to be achieved at the proposed new homes both externally and internally, which could be used in a planning condition, in the event that I am minded to approve the application. They are currently suggesting that the gardens of the nearest proposed homes are not exposed to daytime noise levels from the operations of Jersey Steel greater than 55dBLAmax and 40dBLeq over 16 hours during daytime. In addition, they have provided suggested maximum interior average daytime noise levels for bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, kitchens, bathrooms and utility rooms.
3.71 I am advised by Health Protection, that the recommended noise parameters are based on World Health Organisation information in relation to community noise. I note that the exterior noise measures appear more onerous than those set out in Planning Policy Guidance 24, which remains the latest current UK planning guidance on the issue. That document recommends, for example, that where new housing development is exposed to daytime noise levels from mixed sources (i.e. combination of road, rail, air and industrial noise sources) of less than 55dBLAeq, noise need not be considered as a determining factor in granting planning permission. Indeed, in such circumstances, it recommends noise should only be taken into account and, where appropriate, conditions imposed (to ensure an adequate level of protection against noise), if the daytime noise is between 55 and 63dBLAeq. I also note that Planning Policy Guidance 24 indicates that planning permission for new dwellings should not normally be granted where they might be exposed to night-time noise levels from individual noise events that regularly exceed 82dBLAmax. This is far higher than Health Protection’s recommended daytime parameter of 55dBLAmax.
3.72 As Minister for Planning and Environment, I am conscious of my responsibility to ensure that any proposed development is not subject to an unacceptable degree of noise disturbance. However, I am also aware of the need to ensure that I do not place unjustifiable and unreasonable obstacles in the way of developments and, particularly, developments of much needed affordable homes on land zoned for the purpose. Clearly, I should be aiming to ensure that there is a reasonable and proportionate response to the noise issue and, given the complexity of the issue, I recognise the need to take account of advice from Health Protection, as the Department’s expert advisers on noise issues. This matter could be addressed by imposing a planning condition, which sets out a requirement to comply with Department of Environment Planning Policy Guidance 24, ‘Planning and Noise’ and the World Health Organisation publication ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, 1999. The condition could require details of the proposed ‘noise scheme’ and set out the noise mitigation measures that should be provided as a basic minimum, having regard to the recommendations of Health Protection. This could be backed up by a Planning Obligation Agreement requiring the developer to fund the off-site noise mitigation measures.
Other Potential Points of Detail
3.73 There are a number of other points of detail, many of which were raised at the recent Public Hearing which I feel warrant some response.
Open Space Provision
3.74 The objectors argue that the application fails to make adequate provision for public open space, as required by the development brief. Under current published standards, a scheme of this size would normally require approximately 1.5 acres (3.4 vergees) of public open space. In view of the requirement / proposal to create an extremely large public amenity area to the south (approx 11 acres), the development brief only requires that “at least one area of public open space measuring no less than 0.25 acres is included within the developable residential area and that the remaining requirements for open space are met by the public amenity area to the south and the proposed buffer strips”.
3.75 I would acknowledge that the proposed ‘Village Square’, though intended as an important part of the public realm, is unlikely to contribute significantly in this regard. However, I do think that the flat areas and gently sloping land to the east of the proposed berm in Field 853 (originally not intended as part of the buffer zone) will serve to meet the on-site requirement. This would be complemented by the opportunities for play provided by private gardens, footpaths and quieter roads and courtyards.
3.76 The overall open space requirements would be more than met by the proposed public amenity area, including the higher land immediately to the south of the proposed housing, the proposed children’s and teenagers’ play areas and the proposed footpath and cycle network.
‘Cut and Fill’
3.77 At the Public Hearing the objectors called into question the need for undertaking the proposed ‘cut and fill’ exercise, if the berm is unlikely to be particularly effective in mitigating noise from Jersey Steel. It was suggested it would be better for the development to follow the natural contours of the site.
3.78 It is important to recognise that the lower parts of the zoned housing site will require raising in order to:
ensure the floor levels of all the new homes are constructed so as not to be at risk of flooding during a 1 in 200 year event, taking into account the predicted effects of climate change;
provide an acoustic berm, which would be part of a package of measures designed to reduce the exposure of the proposed homes to unreasonable noise from Jersey Steel.
3.79 To this end, I consider, as did former Committees, that the ‘cut and fill’ approach is far preferable to importing large amounts of fill material to the site. As a consequence, the only fill which it will be necessary to import will be for engineering purposes. The ‘cut and fill’ exercise will still result in a naturally sloping site and there is a recommended requirement for the applicants to provide more detailed figures and drawings to my satisfaction.
Traffic Speed
3.80 There are some residents who are worried about the speed of traffic using St. Peter’s Valley Road and a number consider there is a need to slow traffic approaching the proposed site access from the north to allow safer vehicle manoeuvring and pedestrian crossing to and from the site. They say this is made worse because the site access is in a dip in the road.
3.81 Clearly, traffic speeds are matters to be determined by Transport and Technical Services, as the highway authority, having regard to the road layout, the prevailing traffic conditions, potential hazards and other relevant factors.
3.82 With regard to the application, Transport and Technical Services have advised that the siting and arrangement of the proposed vehicle entry/exit point and the associated road widening and improvement works along St. Peter’s Valley Road are generally in accordance with their requirements. They have requested more detailed drawings showing acceptable vertical and horizontal road alignments and including a slight amendment to the location of the proposed pedestrian refuge. This can be addressed by a planning condition, as can the required visibility sight lines at the site access, in the interests of highway safety.
Provision of Garages
3.83 The objectors remain concerned that only 57% of the proposed homes have garages and this issue was raised at the recent Public Hearing. In my report on the previous application, I commented that “ideally, applicants should aim to provide a garage for every family home”. However, it is important to recognise that the provision of garages is not a requirement of the development brief, as long as suitable storage sheds are provided for bicycles and other domestic paraphernalia. Furthermore, this line was essentially held throughout the long period before my involvement with the proposed development of the site.
3.84 I note that the proposed parking provision complies with specified requirements. Furthermore, the number of garages has increased significantly over the 30 garages and car ports proposed in the previous application, which then represented provision for only some 23% of the homes.
3.85 In view of the above, I believe it would be unreasonable, at this time, to insist on a further increase in garage provision.
Northern Part of the Site
3.86 At the recent Public Hearing, the objectors questioned why it is proposed to put 14 homes on the northern part of the site (Field 848 and a former orchard), contrary to indications given in the Island Plan.
3.87 Paragraph 8.71 refers to the northern part of the site as being overgrown and disused and suggests this would be mainly retained as a landscape buffer to the development. However, the development brief simply requires a buffer strip (10-15m wide) along the eastern boundary of Field 848, in order to help retain the rural character of this stretch of St. Peter’s Valley. It was envisaged at the time that this would involve retaining the existing roadside trees and the inclusion of a footpath. This position has been held throughout the protracted process to-date, as has the related issue of ensuring that any proposals do not give rise to undue prejudice of the property immediately to the north.
3.88 All of the previous schemes have included housing development in the northern part of the site and there have not been any objections to this in principle by former Committees or myself. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not believe this issue presents reasonable grounds for opposing the current application.
Design of Estate Roads
3.89 Although this is not an issue raised by objectors, I believe there are opportunities to enhance the character and appearance of the whole scheme by employing a different and more aesthetically pleasing surface treatment for the proposed estate roads. Rather than using conventional bitumen Macadam, I believe there would be merit in making use of a suitable proprietary road surface treatment. I am aware that there are such treatments that combine chopped glass fibres with bitumen and aggregate, which have been used successfully and to good effect in housing developments elsewhere. This matter could be addressed by planning condition.
Sustainability
3.90 At the Public Hearing the objectors argued that the sustainability aspirations set out in the development brief have not been met. The brief tries to encourage a sustainable approach to design, which it describes as a “challenge” for the developer, particularly in areas of energy efficiency and water conservation. However, there is no formally approved planning policy guidance on this matter. As a consequence, I and my predecessors have only been able to encourage such provision through a process of negotiation.
3.91 While the applicants have clearly not responded positively to all the desirable sustainability ideas referred to in the brief, their proposals do make acceptable provision in this regard, including:
the widespread use of compact building forms (terraces) with low external wall to floor ratios;
various measures to encourage walking, cycling and bus travel;
extensive landscaping and habitat enhancement;
retention of existing trees where possible and extensive new tree planting;
the provision of public open space and community facilities;
the orientation of 53% of the homes to within 30 to 40 degrees of South, so that they might benefit from passive solar gain.
3.92 The applicants have also agreed to provide water butts for each home, to fit dual flush toilets and flow restrictors on taps as standard, and to provide hot water units in roof spaces to allow for easy connection of solar hot water heating panels. These could be the subject of planning conditions. Some of the most effective sustainability measures relate to thermal insulation, heating and ventilation, and these matters are covered by the Building Byelaws.
3.93 In view of the above, I do not believe there is any justification for refusing the application or requiring further amendment to the proposals on sustainability grounds.
Maintenance of the Surface Water Pumping Station
3.94 Some objectors have questioned why it is recommended that a planning obligation agreement with the developers will only require them to fund the maintenance of the pumping station for a period of 15 years, before maintenance reverts to the Public.
3.95 I am advised that this is typical of the arrangements made for pumping stations where they provide a significant public benefit, as in this instance. The required period of maintenance would normally only be extended to 20 or 30 years where the developers are the only beneficiary.
3.96 Notwithstanding the above, I have secured an agreement with the developers that they cover the cost of maintenance and the replacement of the pumps over a period of twenty years and the planning obligation agreement will be drafted accordingly.
Planning Conditions
3.97 In the letter from the Parish Deputy, which was read out at the recent Public Hearing, she queries who is responsible for compliance with planning conditions that might be attached to a planning permission. She also asks whether the developer would incur penalties if any such conditions are not complied with.
3.98 I can confirm that it would be the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that they comply with any planning conditions that might be attached to a planning permission. However, as the grant of planning permission enures for the benefit of the land to which it relates, certain conditions (e.g that relating to occupancy) will apply in future to other persons who have an estate or interest in the land.
3.99 Under Article 7 of the ‘Planning and Building (Jersey) Law, “a person shall be guilty of an offence… …if when undertaking development, the person contravenes any condition subject to which planning permission for the development was granted”. Any person guilty of such an offence is liable to a fine, or imprisonment, or both. Furthermore, under Article 47 of the Law, if a condition attached to a planning or building permission is not complied with, the Minister is empowered to serve an ‘enforcement notice’ to secure compliance.
3.100 The Law also allows for applications to remove or vary a planning condition/s and there are specific forms available for this purpose. Given the sensitivity of this application, I have already decided that any such requests in association with any permission granted for this site would have to be signed off by me.
3.101 In any event, I will also expect any conditions to be strictly adhered to. Historically, the Planning Department has not had the resources available to pro-actively police all conditions attached to planning permissions. However, in most cases, conditions are complied with. Where a breach of condition comes to light, the Department has a duty to take necessary enforcement action. In recent years, the Department has been helped in identifying instances where breaches of condition have occurred, by the practice of informing objectors about the conditions attached to any planning permissions. Given the sensitivity of this application, I have reached agreement with the applicants that none of the homes will be occupied until all relevant conditions have been discharged and signed off as such by the Planning Department. Prior to the occupation of any homes, an inspection will be carried out by the Department which will satisfy itself that all relevant conditions have been met.
DECISION
3.102 This application represents the culmination of a very long and complex planning process. Quite rightly, in view of the controversial nature of the proposals, this process has devoted a very considerable amount of time, energy and resources to public consultation and the consideration of views expressed by local residents and their political representatives. As a consequence, there have been numerous beneficial changes to the proposals since the first informal scheme was put forward for 150 homes and I believe the current proposals represent another significant improvement over the previous scheme for 129 homes.
3.103 After a careful appraisal of the application and the relevant material considerations on 20th March 2007, I have decided to grant planning consent, subject to the finalisation of planning conditions and to a requirement that the developer should enter into a planning obligation agreement. In addition, I have decided that the permit will allow for commencement of a limited amount of work associated with the development in advance of the planning obligation agreement being signed and registered, including site preparation and the construction of plots 69-72 and 97-102, as set out in condition 2a. Although it is unusual to permit the commencement of any development in advance of the planning obligation agreement on the sites zoned for Category A homes in the Island Plan, there is precedent and, in this particular instance, it will obviate the need for the developer to lay off a large proportion of its workforce.
Senator Freddie Cohen 4th May 2007
MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
STATES OF JERSEY
APPENDIX 1
CONDITIONS OF DECISION TO GRANT PLANNING CONSENT
- Planning permission for five years
If the development hereby permitted has not commenced within 3 years of the date of the decision by the Minister for Planning and Environment to ‘resolve to grant planning permission’ (21 March 2007) the permission shall cease to be valid.
Reason: In the interests of meeting the Island ’s housing requirements, the Minister for Planning and the Environment reserves the right to review the provision and delivery of homes.
- Requirement to enter into a Planning Obligation Agreement.
The developer shall, within 6 months of the date of this permission, enter into a formal contract with the Minister for Planning and Environment under Article 25 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002. Unless otherwise agreed by the Minister, the obligation shall guarantee the provision of the following:
(i) The 102 Category A dwelling units hereby permitted shall either be:
- developed and retained in the proportion of 55% for sale to first-time buyers, as defined in the obligation, and 45% for social rent tenants (to be transferred to a social housing landlord approved by the Minister for Housing), in accordance with the Island Plan 2002, Policy H1 ‘Provision of Homes’; or
- developed and retained in accordance with any approved amendment to the tenure requirements decided by the Minister for Planning and Environment where he has satisfied himself that there is sufficient justification (e.g. allowing for a proportional split between conventional first-time buyer homes and shared equity homes);
(ii) the implementation of the road widening works to St. Peter’s Valley Road, together with the associated site access arrangements, public footways and pedestrian refuge in accordance with the approved drawing no.1689 L(0-) 183 P2, as amended by the detailed drawings required under condition no.7;
(iii) a financial contribution for the erection of two bus shelters near the entrance to the proposed development. One on the northern side of St. Peter’s Valley Road on the inbound route to town and one on-site catering for outward-bound travel;
(iv) the provision of “kick-start” funding for 2 additional buses in the morning and evening peak periods over 5 years (total contribution of £120,000);
(v) the provision of a public amenity area to the south of the approved housing development (Part Fields 851, 853 and 854 and Fields 861, 862A and 863A) and a buffer strip along Le Perquage (Part Field 853), with restrictions on future use;
(vi) the provision of funds to meet the cost of off-site noise mitigation measures, involving:
- the installation of a high speed roller shutter door at the eastern end of the Jersey Steel factory;
- the erection of a lean-to structure over the main entrance door at the eastern end of the Jersey Steel factory;
- the erection of a close-boarded boundary fence to Jersey Steel’s premises along the boundary with Le Perquage;
- and any other measures deemed appropriate and reasonable by the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with Health Protection, following submission of the required ‘noise scheme’.
(vii) A mechanism to effect the future maintenance of public areas and facilities. This will address the arrangements to be put in place for the long-term management and maintenance of planting and soft landscaping, paved areas (including footpaths, cycleways, roads and courtyards / parking areas), open spaces (including the Public Amenity Area, village square, buffer zones and other communal open green spaces), community facilities (including the community building and the children’s and teenager’s play areas) and external lighting;
(viii) the provision, transfer and maintenance of surface water drainage / flood amelioration works and infrastructure for foul drainage;
(ix) the restoration and maintenance of watercourses adjoining the site;
(x) the provision of a 12 month defect liability period for the Public for the road works, drainage infrastructure and any other relevant works.
Reason: To effect compliance with the Island Plan and to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure, which is related to the development, is provided and maintained.
2A. Commencement of Development
Until the Planning Obligation Agreement required by Condition No 2 is signed and registered in the Royal Court, and all financial contributions required under the agreement are paid, work at the site shall be limited to;
(a) Site preparation, including the creation of the site access, the establishment of the builder’s compound, ground works and earth-moving in accordance with the approved plans;
(b) The construction of the houses on plots 69 – 72 and 97 - 102 provided that under no circumstances shall they be occupied until the Planning Obligation Agreement has been signed and registered; and
(c) Such other works that may be agreed in writing by, or on behalf of, the Minister
Provided that the works under (a) must include the installation of a temporary land drainage system, constructed to the satisfaction of the TTS drainage engineer, which shall incorporate attenuation or run-off to the watercourse.
Reason: To enable certain works to begin in advance of the registration of the Planning Obligation Agreement
3. Development to comply with Island Plan Policy H1 or any subsequent amendment to Tenure Requirements
The 102 Category A dwelling units hereby permitted shall either be:
(i) developed and retained in the proportion of 55% for sale to first-time buyers, as defined below, and 45% for social rent tenants (to be transferred to a social housing landlord approved by the Minister for Housing), in accordance with the Island Plan 2002, Policy H1 ‘Provision of Homes’; or
(ii) developed and retained in accordance with any amendment to the tenure requirements agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment where he has satisfied himself that there is sufficient justification allowing for a proportional split between conventional first-time buyer homes and shared equity homes;
Drawings showing the proposed tenure mix shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment within 6 months of commencement of works.
Reason: In the interests of meeting the Island ’s housing requirements.
4. First – time buyer / rental condition
A. The Category A dwellings to which this permission relates shall not, without the consent of the Minister for Planning and Environment, be transferred by sale, cession, gift, exchange or other form of transfer to any person who does not satisfy the criteria specified in the schedule hereto.
B. The Category A dwellings to which this permission relates shall not, without the consent of the Minister for Planning and Environment, be occupied by any person who does not satisfy the criteria specified in the schedule hereto and who does not occupy the accommodation as his sole or principal place of residence.
Schedule Persons to whom (the residential accommodation) may be transferred in accordance with condition ‘A’ above, or who may occupy (the residential accommodation) in accordance with condition ‘B’ above. 1) any person who – i) does not own, and has not previously owned, whether as a sole owner or jointly in common with any other persons, a) any immovable property; b) either in his own name or as beneficial owner shares in any company, ownership of which confers the right to occupy residential accommodation; and – ii) is neither married to, nor buying as co-owner with, any person who does not fall within (i) above 2) any person who has been approved by the Minister for Housing as being a person to whom consent should be granted to acquire or to occupy the residential accommodation as the case may be notwithstanding the fact that he does not fall within (1) above. |
Reason: To ensure that the land and property the subject of the application remains in the use for which it was designated by the States, in the best interests of the community.
5. Comprehensive Development
The development hereby permitted shall be developed in its entirety. Prior to commencement, except as provided for by condition 2a, the applicant shall provide evidence to the Minister for Planning and Environment that the site approved for housing purposes is in its ownership, or that the area not currently in its ownership will be acquired, or will otherwise be developed in tandem by a separate party which will be afforded access to the roadways and services hereby permitted on the applicant’s site.
Reason:
To ensure that the land zoned by the States specifically for Category A housing to meet the current and future needs of the community is developed comprehensively and in its entirety, in accordance with the requirements of Island Plan Policy H2 and all the terms of the approval.
6. Chicane barriers for Pedestrian / Cycle Path
A safety / “chicane” barrier shall be installed within the site where the proposed footpaths merge at a junction with the top of Le Perquage Flats’ driveway and pose an increased risk for pedestrian and cyclist safety (i.e. in accordance with the applicant’s letter of 20th September 2005). Details of the design and siting shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with the Transport and Technical Services Department, prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To allow for effective and safe use of the footpath / cycle route and in the interests of highway safety generally.
7. Road widening and access arrangements – Design and layout
Within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, detailed and suitably revised drawings of the proposed road widening / improvement works to St. Peter’s Valley Road (including the road realignment, new footways, pedestrian refuge and vehicular access to the site) shall be prepared and agreed with the Transport and Technical Services Department and shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The drawings shall be based on an accurate survey, shall show accurate spot levels and shall:
i) demonstrate an acceptable vertical and horizontal road alignment;
ii) include plans of the required bus shelters and stops in safe positions for east- and west-bound bus travellers;
iii) relocate the pedestrian refuge a little further southeast towards the vehicular access point;
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to encourage safe pedestrian crossing of the Valley Road.
8. Road Widening and Access Arrangements - Completion
The proposed road widening / improvement works to St. Peter’s Valley Road, including the realignment / reinstatement of the roadside wall, banque and trees, the construction of new footways and a pedestrian refuge and the formation of the vehicular access point, shall be carried out at the expense of the developer and to the satisfaction of the Transport and Technical Services Department and the Minister for Planning and Environment, prior to the first home being occupied.
Reason: To provide safe access to and egress from the site and to ensure necessary highway improvement works are undertaken for the safety of all road users.
9. Visibility Splay
Prior to the first use/occupation of the development hereby permitted, 50m visibility lines must be provided in accordance with the approved drawings (dwg no 1698 L(0-) 183 P2). 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.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
10. Path link to Le Perquage - Design
The path link to Le Perquage from the play areas and the site access road beyond, as shown on the site development plan (dwg no 1698 L(0-) 101 P4), shall be designed and constructed as a 3m wide shared cycle route/footpath in accordance with the requirements of the Transport and Technical Services Department.
Reason: To allow for effective and safe use by pedestrians and cyclists in the interests of improved accessibility and promoting safe and sustainable movement.
11. Completion of roads and paved areas.
No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until all related road, footpath / cycle path infrastructure and paved public areas have been completed in accordance with the approved plans (as amended by other conditions attached to this consent), to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, unless otherwise agreed by the Minister. (N.B. It is accepted that the final wearing course for the road will not be laid until approximately 6 months after the major construction work is completed, to allow the sub-layers to fully settle).
Reason: To help ensure that necessary services and facilities required by the existing and proposed residents are provided before the dwellings are occupied.
12. Parking– provision in accordance with designations
Parking spaces for residents’ and visitors’ vehicles shall be provided and allocated in accordance with the approved parking provisions (dwg 1698 L(0-) 191 P3), or with any modified arrangement which might subsequently be approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The occupation of homes in each parking zone hereby permitted shall not take place until the relevant parking spaces and structures have been completed and made available.
Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the parking of vehicles for residents and visitors, both now and in the future, in accordance with the Minister for Planning and Environment’s parking requirements and in the interests of highway safety and the general amenities of the area.
13. Security of rear access paths
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, details of the secure resident gates on access routes from ‘public areas’ to rear gardens and courtyards, as shown on drawing no. 1698 L(0-) 192 P2, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To ensure secure controlled access to private rear gardens and courtyards, and to avoid creating unnecessary potential escape routes for criminals, in the interests of crime prevention.
14. External Lighting
Within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted, an amended detailed scheme for lighting the ‘public areas’ shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. As previously indicated, the design should be modified to address the matters raised by the Senior Electrical Engineer at PSD in his letter dated 1st August 2005 (see attached) regarding the height of the columns, the use of the 1m high bollard lights and the potential use / adaptation of the existing road lighting in association with the development hereby approved.
Reason: To provide for the safety of users of the development hereby approved, avoid light pollution, avoid light intrusion into first-floor rooms, reduce the potential for vandalism, avoid potential glare to road users, reduce future problems associated with the disposal of lamps with a high mercury count, protect the character and amenity of the area and serve the interest of energy efficiency.
15. Landscaping scheme – Details
Within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted, a detailed landscaping scheme / plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The scheme shall be based on the framework suggested for soft landscaping (dwg no 1701 L(0-) 101 P2) and hard landscaping (dwg no 1701 L(0-) 102 P2) and shall include:
i) a specification for new planting, including the identification of the number, type, size and position of all new trees and shrubs and the means to be used to support and protect them;
ii) other landscape treatments to be carried out, including the proposed amended re-contouring in Field 853 (i.e. to create bunding) and the proposed pathways and scrapes to be introduced into the Public Amenity Area;
iii) the programme of implementation; and
iv) an updated landscape management plan covering long-term objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all communal landscaped areas.
The programme of implementation shall provide for the planting to commence at the earliest opportunity along boundaries and in other areas where practicable.
Reason: To ensure that, before the development proceeds, provision is made for a landscaping regime that will enhance the appearance of the development and help assimilate it into the landscape from the outset.
16. Landscaping – Buffer area planting
The planting in the buffer areas associated with the realigned roadside wall and banque feature along St. Peter’s Valley Road and with the re-contouring in Field 853 adjacent Le Perquage, where this is not affected by the development, shall be completed in the first planting season following commencement of the development, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: So that these features might be established early in order to maximise their benefit in helping to soften the impact of the approved development, improve the amenities of the area and maintain landscape quality.
17. Landscaping scheme - Commencement and completion
All planting and other operations comprised in the approved landscaping scheme, which are not implemented earlier in accordance with conditions 15 and 16 above and/or an approved programme of implementation, shall be carried out and completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment in the first planting season following the first occupation of the development or within such period as may otherwise be agreed.
Reason: To ensure that the benefits of the approved landscaping scheme are not delayed and that they make a timely contribution to the amenity of the development in the interests of sustaining and enhancing landscape quality.
18. Landscaping Scheme – Replacement planting
Any trees or plants planted in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme, which within a period of 3 years from their planting, die, become damaged or diseased, or are removed, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To mitigate the potential failure of trees and plants and the extent to which that failure might threaten the success of the landscaping scheme.
19. Tree Protection during Site Works
Tree protection measures during site works shall be carried out in accordance with approved proposals in drawing no. 1701 L(0-) 104 P1, so that all the trees to be retained shall be protected for the duration of the development hereby permitted. In addition and for the avoidance of doubt:
(i) no demolition, site clearance or building operations shall commence until suitable fencing has been erected around each tree or group of trees to be retained, at a radius from the trunk of 5 metres or around the crownspread, whichever is the greater. Such fencing shall be maintained until development is complete;
(ii) no trenches, including any trench for services or drains shall encroach within the crowspread of any trees to be retained;
(iii) the burning of materials, including any obtained by site clearance or demolition, shall not take place within 6 metres of the furthest extent of a canopy of any tree or group of trees to be retained;
(iv) no topsoil or other spoil from excavations shall be disposed within the crownspread of trees to be retained within the site;
(v) no tree shall be felled, lopped, topped, or in any way destroyed or removed, unless the prior written consent of the Minister for Planning and Environment is received.
Reason: To protect important trees from damage during the whole of the construction period and to help ensure their long-term contribution to the character and amenity of the approved development and the surrounding area.
20. Changes in levels on site
Accurate and detailed figures and drawings of the ‘cut and fill’ earthworks shall be produced by the applicant, including accurate site cross sections, to determine required levels and demonstrate how equal ratios of cut and fill materials (excluding materials required specifically for engineering purposes) may be achieved. These shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of works on site. The proposed new contours above existing ground levels shall be formed using excavated materials from elsewhere on the site, with the exception of materials required for engineering purposes.
Reason: To ensure that the site is properly contoured from the outset. Thus avoiding unnecessary importation of fill material (contrary to IP Policy WM5), or unnecessary production of excavated material that would need to be exported from the site (contrary to IP Policy WM1).
21. Waste Management
The scheme hereby approved shall be developed in compliance with the terms of the approved ‘Waste Management Report’ (i.e. submitted in the ‘Reports and Information File’) as amended by condition no. 22; notably in relation to the ‘cut and fill’ approach, transport issues and environmental controls; to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To minimise the potential environmental implications of waste management associated with the approved earthworks and other operations during the construction period.
22. Importation of Fill
The importation of fill material in connection with the development hereby approved shall be restricted to clean, inert materials (free from contamination and pollution), which are necessary for engineering purposes. Any import of material over and above this shall require the submission of details and the prior approval of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To minimise the potential environmental implications associated with the importation of fill material and avoid undue harm to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
23. Storage of Excavated Material
Any material excavated during construction, including top soil, shall be stored / relocated only within the boundary of the site, prior to reuse. Stored top soil should be in bunds no more than 1.8m high to prevent anaerobic deterioration. No material shall be removed from the site without the prior consent of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To minimise the production of construction waste, make more efficient use of waste material and reduce the extent to which this material is disposed of in landfill, in accordance with Island Plan Policies WM1 and WM2.
24. Children’s play area – Provision
The developer shall be responsible for the provision of the children’s play area and play equipment, in accordance with the approved play area layout, design and specification / standards, as indicated on drawing no. 1701 L(0-) 103 P1. Unless otherwise agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment, it shall be completed and made available for use, to the satisfaction of the Minister, within twelve months of the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
Reason : This scheme has been approved on the basis that it complies with the requirements of the former Environment & Public Services Committee as set out in its development brief and this facility must be provided and made available for the safe use of the occupiers of any approved dwelling at the earliest opportunity.
25. Children’s play area – Security
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed security fencing and/or railings and gates to be erected around the perimeter of the proposed children’s play area shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: In the interests of safety and security, to ensure a satisfactory visual appearance and to exclude dogs and deter unauthorised access.
26. Teenager Recreational Facility – Provision
The approved teenager recreational facility, including “sports wall” and kick-about area, as shown on drawing no. 1701 L(0-) 103 P1, shall be completed in accordance with the specified layout design and standards. Unless otherwise agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment, it shall be completed and made available for use, to the satisfaction of the Minister, within twelve months of the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To comply with the requirements of the Minister for Planning and Environment for suitable provision for the needs of older children, as set in the Development Brief.
27. Community Hall – Completion
The community hall hereby approved shall be completed and the facilities it provides made available for community use once 75% of the development hereby permitted is occupied.
Reason: The site has been zoned on the basis that its development inter alia complies with the requirements of the Minister for Planning and Environment and this facility must be provided and made available to help meet the social needs of the new and existing residents of the area (e.g. as a base for the activities of social welfare providers, or for other small-scale community activity).
28. Refuse Stations - Design
Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, full design and ventilation details of the proposed communal refuse / recycling stations indicated on drawing no. 1698 L(0-) 194 P2 shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. Dwellings shall not be occupied until the relevant refuse station has been installed.
Reason: To ensure that waste and refuse is stored and disposed of practically, efficiently and in an environmentally sensitive manner, without harming the amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings hereby permitted.
29. Gable-End Fenestration
Windows shall be introduced at first floor levels to the gable ends of properties adjacent to public access routes, where these are not open to surveillance from other properties. Revised drawings showing satisfactory design solutions for the elevations of the gables in question shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure adequate surveillance of publicly accessible areas, in the interests of safety and security.
30. Noise Exposure
A noise scheme for protecting the proposed housing from noise from Jersey Steel, in compliance with Department of Environment Planning Policy Guidance 24, ‘Planning and Noise’ and World Health Organisation publication ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’, 1999 shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with the Health Protection Department, within 6 months of commencement of the development and prior to the first occupation.
The scheme shall include details of the proposed noise mitigation measures, details of the noise calculations confirming the effectiveness of proposed noise mitigation measures and details of the proposals for implementing them.
As a basic minimum, the noise scheme shall include the following on- and off-site noise mitigation measures:
(i) automatic roller shutter doors (default closed) at the eastern entrance of the Jersey Steel factory;
(ii) a lean-to building over the eastern entrance to the Jersey Steel factory;
(iii) a new close-boarded boundary fence at Jersey Steel parallel to the Perquage Walk;
(iv) a 5m high acoustic berm with close planting on Field 853, between Le Perquage and the approved housing;
(v) all generally eastward facing boundary walls / fences to private gardens to be a minimum of 1.8m high close-boarded or solid construction;
(vi) acoustic glazing and whole house ventilation or other satisfactory means of ventilation, as appropriate;
(vii) the additional noise mitigation measures included in paragraph 5.2.1 of the ‘Maximum Noise Level Assessment Report’, PBA, March 2007.
Any approved noise scheme shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with the Health Protection Department, prior to the first occupation.
Reason: to protect the amenities of future occupants of the approved properties.
31. Floor levels for the new homes
The floor levels for the new housing development hereby permitted shall comply with those recommended in the ‘Flood Risk and Drainage Issues’ Report (October 2006) and be set above 9.01m aOD at the upstream end of the housing site and 8.37m aOD at the downstream end.
Reason: To comply with the current guidance provided by the Association of British Insurers and help ensure that the risk of flooding to the new properties is above a 1 in 200 year event, including allowance for ‘Climate Change’.
32. Design of Door Hoods
The design of the door hoods on the front elevations of unit types A1, A2, B, D1 and D2 is not approved. Revised drawings showing details for the design of door hoods / canopies, which reflect the style and materials of the house designs, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, within 6 months of the commencement of the development.
Reason: to present a satisfactory visual appearance to the front elevations in accordance with the published design objectives and principles of the Minister for Planning and the Environment and to offer some protection during inclement weather.
33. Elevational Treatment of Plot 52 - Unit Type A2
The external design for the front elevation of house no.52 (unit type A2) as shown on drawing number 1698 L(2-) 119 P1 is not approved. Consideration should be given to employing other traditional building forms which will present a more balanced and resolved appearance and which will better reflect the key location of the plot and enhance the contribution of the building to the street scene (e.g. as an effective ‘visual stop’ terminating the view along the street from the east).
Revised drawings showing modifications to the external elevations and / or an alternative house design shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, prior to the commencement of the development on the terrace comprising units 51 to 53.
Reason: To present a satisfactory visual appearance in a sensitive location within the development.
34. Elevational Treatment of Unit Types C1 and C2
The designs of the front elevations to unit types C1 and C2 are not approved. Revisions should be made to the proposed window arrangements to present a more resolved appearance and revised drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: To present a satisfactory visual appearance more in keeping with the published design objectives and principles of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
35. Size of Unit Types C1 and C2
Unit types C1 and C2, which are designed as 5-person houses, shall be recognised as such, as opposed to their description as 6-person houses in drawing nos. 1698 L(2-) 112 P2 and 113 P2. A revised drawing shall be submitted accordingly.
Reason: To help ensure reasonable standards of accommodation for future occupants by compliance with minimum standards for internal floorspace and for combined living, dining and kitchen areas.
36. Elderly Persons Accommodation
Within a period of 4 months from the date of this permit, the Minister for Planning and Environment will specify the number, tenure, design, size and specification of the elderly / sheltered homes. In the event that the Minister has not done so within the 4 months period, then 5 units of such accommodation will be provided. Detailed plans should be submitted to the Minister within a further 2 months.
Reason: to enable the current review of elderly persons housing needs to be completed.
37. External Roof Designs
The external roof designs for the following terrace blocks and individual houses hereby approved shall be amended to incorporate additional working chimneys, cement coping and other suitable features to break up unrelieved roof lines, create a vertical contrast to the horizontal roof form and to achieve a better visual balance:
· Courtyard 2 – block 36-38
· Courtyard 2 – block 17-20
· Courtyard 3 – unit 24
· Courtyard 5 – block 76-89
· Courtyard 5 – unit 55
· Courtyard 6 – block 81-85
· Courtyard 8 – block 90-94.
Revised drawings showing the modifications to the external designs shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: To present a more satisfactory visual appearance with more local relevance, where the designs have regard to local forms and more readily reflect (as far as is practicable in the circumstances) the published design objectives and principles of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
38. Size, Design and Internal Storage Provision - Unit Types A1 and A2
The design of unit types A1 and A2 are not approved. They shall be increased in size from 5% to 7.5% above minimum internal floorspace standards and the floor layouts shall ensure adequate internal storage space provision, in accordance with the minimum storage space requirements. Revised drawings, including floor plan, sections and elevations, showing the modifications shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: to help ensure adequate standards of housing provision which will meet the needs of future occupants and to ensure a correct balance between storage space at ground and first floor levels in compliance with published standards.
39. Storage Sheds
Each of the homes hereby permitted which do not have a garage shall be provided with a storage shed in the private garden area, which shall provide a minimum of 4.0m² of floorspace, as indicated on drawing no. 1698 L(0-) 195 P2. The sheds shall be purpose-designed and of blockwork construction and supplied with light, to provide adequate and robust storage facilities. Details of the design and materials of the storage facilities shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted.
Reason: To ensure there is adequate provision for the storage for normal domestic paraphernalia, including bicycles, lawnmowers and tools, which are best stored outside the home.
40. Design of Special Features
Satisfactory detailed designs for the proposed feature in the public square, the footbridge over the Perquage brook and the entrance pillars to the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: To ensure they present a satisfactory visual appearance in keeping with the character of the approved development and in compliance with the published design objectives and principles of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
41. Solar Heating
Appropriately designed hot water units (with appropriate pipe work / connectors) shall be located in the roof spaces of the new homes, to allow for the easy installation of solar water heating panels by future occupants, in accordance with the applicant’s letter dated 20th September 2005. Details shall be submitted with the application for Building Consent.
Reason: To provide the opportunity for future occupants to readily supplement conventional water heating with heat from a renewable energy source (passive solar gain), in the interest of energy efficiency and more sustainable living.
42. Water Saving Measures
All the approved homes shall be provided with water butts, together with an automatic bypass valve from the rainwater down pipes and shall be fitted, as standard, with dual flush toilets and flow restrictors on taps. Final details of the design of the water butts shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: To allow for rainwater harvesting and reduce the use of treated ‘white water’, in the interests of water conservation and more sustainable living.
43. Enclosures for property boundaries - Design
Garden enclosures and other boundary treatments shall comply with the design types and locations set out in drawing no. 1701 L(0-) 102 P2, subject to the following exceptions:
(i) all timber fences proposed in combination with a low wall shall be vertical close-boarded fencing;
(ii) the low roadside wall extending into the site to the south of the road entrance shall be faced in granite and topped with a suitable coping;
(iii) the retaining walls forming the garden boundary of house no. 49 and the northern boundary of parking courtyard no. 4 shall be 1.8m high with a granite face presented towards the buffer area of low planting adjacent to St. Peter’s Valley Road.
(iv) the private garden boundary / retaining walls to house nos. 10 and 11 are granite faced where they give onto the buffer area;
(v) the front garden enclosures to house nos. 90-94 and 97-102 giving onto the public amenity area take the form of 0.9m high blockwork walls finished in a suitable coloured render and topped with a suitable coping.
Drawings showing details of all the proposed enclosure types shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, except as provided for by condition 2a.
Reason: To enhance the character and appearance of the development, present an attractive and tidy edge to the gardens and public spaces, prevent unsightly views across back gardens and ensure reasonable privacy and security for the occupiers of the homes in question.
44. Completion of property boundary enclosures
All approved walls, fences and other forms of enclosure around the gardens of individual homes shall be erected prior to the first occupation of the homes in question.
Reason: To present an attractive and tidy edge to the gardens, prevent unsightly views across back gardens and ensure reasonable privacy and security for the occupiers of the homes.
45. Pergola Design for Parking Areas
Pergolas shall be reinstated over car parking spaces R12-R15 and R66-R84 and detailed drawings showing the design of the proposed pergolas shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment, within 12 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted
Reason: To ensure the pergolas present a satisfactory visual appearance.
46. Roof materials
The roofs of all the house types with the exception of types C1 and C2 shall be finished in natural slate.
Reason: To present a more satisfactory appearance, create greater visual unity and achieve better visual integration with the surrounding area.
47. Samples of external materials
Within 12 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted, samples of the proposed roofing materials (including slates and pantiles) and proposed paving blocks, shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To ensure that the materials proposed are visually acceptable and will contribute to producing a high quality cohesive development, whilst providing a satisfactory visual relationship with the surrounding area.
48. Colour scheme
Notwithstanding the indications on the approved plans and prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, except as provided for by condition 2a, full details of the colour scheme to be used on the external elevations of the buildings shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. (N.B. The indicative colours shown on the submitted elevations are generally acceptable but, in any event, the development brief calls for exterior walls to generally employ earth colours and it will be especially important to have darker earth-coloured walls for the elevations facing south onto the wetland amenity area).
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance, reduce the development’s impact on the wider landscape, increase its affinity with the surrounding landscape colours and generally safeguard the visual amenities of the area.
49. Surface water drainage
Exact details of drainage proposals for the controlled disposal of surface water from the development to the watercourse, including detailed site layouts and calculations for sizing of sewers, as well as details of the two surface water attenuation tanks now proposed at the south western corner of the housing site and any associated works to the stream (e.g. headwall or gabion mattressing) shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment in consultation with the Principle Drainage Engineer, Transport and Technical Services, within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted. For the avoidance of doubt, the proposals for the disposal of surface water shall meet the requirements set out in the comments sheet from PSD (Drainage) dated 13th October 2005 and the additional comments set out in the letter from TTS (Drainage) dated 5th December 2006 (see attached).
Reason: to help ensure that the rate of surface water discharge to the watercourse is no greater than the current rate from the present undeveloped area and to generally ensure that adequate provision is made for surface water drainage in a manner that does not have an undue impact on the risk of fluvial flooding of properties in the area.
50. Petrol / Oil Interceptors
Petrol / oil interceptors shall be provided as part of the final detailed proposals for surface water disposal from the approved housing development, to the satisfaction of the Transport and Technical Services Department and the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: to maintain the water quality entering the watercourse and reduce the risk of pollution.
51. Level of water in the Marsh
The minimum level of water to be maintained in the Marsh to maintain its ecological character and status quo in times of flood shall be agreed with the States Ecologist at the Environment Department and the agreed level shall be used to inform the final design of the surface water pumping station and, in particular, the weir plate level. (N.B. It is anticipated that the minimum level will be in the region of 6.0m aOD, as indicated in the submitted ‘Flood Risk and Drainage Issues’ report, October 2006).
Reason: to help ensure that there will be no detrimental impact on the existing wetland ecology and the character of the Marsh.
52. Construction Phase Flood mitigation measures
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the construction phase drainage scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment in consultation with Transport and Technical Services (Drainage). The scheme shall ensure that during construction, the peak discharge rate of surface water from the housing site to the Perquage stream does not exceed that of the existing run-off from the fields.
Reason: to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding to existing properties in the area during the construction period.
53. Completion of flood mitigation measures
The proposed permanent flood mitigation measures, including the surface water attenuation proposals for the housing site and the surface water pumping station, as approved and, in part, designed by Transport and Technical Services (Drainage) and associated improvements to watercourses, shall be put in place and operational prior to the completion of the housing development hereby permitted, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment in consultation with Transport and Technical Services.
Reason: to reduce the risk of fluvial flooding to existing properties in the area.
54. Foul drainage
None of the homes hereby approved shall be occupied until the foul drainage works to serve the development have been designed and completed to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with Transport and Technical Services (Drainage). To this end, the foul pumping station shall be designed and constructed to the specification of Transport and Technical Services (Drainage), constructed by one of that department’s approved contractors and connected to the 27˝ foul sewer adjacent to the sea wall. The southern end of the proposed pumped foul rising main connection to the foul sewer shall be routed / laid along Le Perquage Walk and not through the private garden of ‘Brookside’. For the avoidance of doubt, the foul water disposal shall meet the requirements set out in the comments sheet from PSD (Drainage) dated 13th October 2005 and the additional comments set out in the letter from TTS (Drainage) dated 5th December 2006 (see attached).
Reason: To ensure adequate provision for the disposal of foul water.
55. Communal satellite dishes
Prior to the completion of the development hereby approved, provision shall be made for the installation of a communal satellite and TV Communal Distribution System, in accordance with the details set out in drawing number JY35-DME-1001(P2), to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To avoid the visual clutter that would result from a proliferation of individual dishes and to safeguard the visual amenities of the new development.
56. JEC Substation - Design
Within 6 months of the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the siting and full design details of any required JEC substation shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and avoid detractions from the visual amenities of the development.
57. Prevention of debris on roads during construction
The St. Peter’s Valley Road shall be kept clean of all mud and debris that may be dropped from vehicles entering of leaving the site during the construction of the development hereby permitted. To this end, the contractor shall put in place an effective means of wheel washing, which shall be used prior to vehicles leaving the site during the construction period
Reason: To prevent carry over of material on the highway and avoid this detracting from the character and amenities of the area and presenting a hazard to road users.
58. Construction Traffic
Construction vehicles accessing and exiting the site shall do so via the approved new access point along St. Peter’s Valley Road and shall avoid the use of nearby Rue du Craslin and Rue de Haut. (N.B. Rue du Craslin is subject to a 6΄6˝ vehicle width restriction).
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
59. Road Surfaces
The proposed bitumen Macadam surface treatment for the estate roads is not approved. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, revised drawings showing a more aesthetically pleasing alternative surface treatment shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Reason: To present a satisfactory visual appearance more in keeping with the published design objectives and principles of the Minister for Planning and Environment.
60. Percentage for Art
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, except as provided for by condition 2a, sufficient details of the proposals for the provision of public art and how it will be procured through the Percentage for Art mechanism shall be submitted to and approved by the Minister for Planning and Environment. The art should be visible to the general public, whether part of a building or free-standing and should form an integral part of the proposed housing development and/or the public amenity area.
Reason: In pursuance of Policy BE12 of the 2002 Island Plan and in accordance with the adopted Percentage for Art Supplementary Planning Guidance, December 2006.
61. Replacement of Roadside Wall, Banque and Trees
The roadside granite wall, banque and tree feature along St. Peter’s Valley Road shall be reinstated on the new road alignment in the same materials and style, to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment, within 12 months of the commencement of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by, or on behalf of, the Minister. The trees to be felled shall be replaced on a one-to-one basis with semi-mature specimens of the same species. (N.B. It is accepted that this feature will be stopped short of the access road entrance so as to maintain the required visibility splay and afford level access to the traffic refuge for pedestrians).
Reason: To help reinstate an important feature which contributes to the character of the area, to reduce the visual impact of the approved development and to help the development to fit more successfully into the surrounding local landscape.
INFORMATIVES
The Housing Department has advised that, in the event of the creation of any units of dwelling accommodation upon the land, such accommodation shall be occupied by persons qualifying under Regulations 1(1)(a)-(h) who are bone-fide first-time buyers.
The Health Protection Department, under the terms of the ‘Statutory Nuisances Law, 1999’:
i) requires a ‘construction site management plan’ detailing the measures proposed to minimise noise, dust and vibration during site preparation and construction phases of the development, including vehicle movements on site and from HGV’s accessing the site. It requires that de-watering pumps etc. should be enclosed and insulated properly to minimise noise to neighbouring property and that they be sited as far a practicable from residential property.
ii) requires that a dedicated wheel wash facility should be provided to minimise mud on the highway and associated dust. It recommends that the highway in close proximity to the site should be cleaned daily to minimise mud and dust and that vehicles bringing materials to the site from other construction sites should be covered on the highway to prevent dust affecting the highway and premises en route.
(iii) recommends vehicle movement restrictions.
(iv) recommends that the contractors and sub-contractors involved in the development should follow its guidance in relation to minimising noise, dust and vibration.
(v) recommends that the contractors should liaise with local residents regarding the planned work, time scales, compensation measures (such as cleaning cars etc) plus any pre and post assessments of properties for vibration damage.
The Surface Water Pumping Station in the car park to the south of Route de la Haule will be designed by Transport and Technical Services (Drainage) who will contract out the work. The contract will address issues relating to noise, dust, vibration, lorry movements, hours of work etc. in common with usual practice. Guidance will be taken from the Health Protection Department, as necessary, in drawing up the contract.
APPENDIX 2
PLANNING OBLIGATION AGREEMENTS
It has been decided that, subject to the findings of the Law Officers, the following matters will be covered by planning obligations for the development in question. Unless otherwise agreed by the Minister for Planning and Environment, the obligations shall guarantee the provision of the following:
(1) The 102 Category A dwelling units hereby permitted shall either be:
- developed and retained in the proportion of 55% for sale to first-time buyers, as defined in the obligation, and 45% for social rent tenants (to be transferred to a social housing landlord approved by the Minister for Housing), in accordance with the Island Plan 2002, Policy H1 ‘Provision of Homes’; or
- developed and retained in accordance with any approved amendment to the tenure requirements decided by the Minister for Planning and Environment where he has satisfied himself that there is sufficient justification (e.g. allowing for a proportional split between conventional first-time buyer homes and shared equity homes);
(2) the implementation of the road widening and highway improvement works to St. Peter’s Valley Road, including the associated site access arrangements, public footways and pedestrian refuge and the ceding of the relevant land to the public;
(3) a financial contribution of £12,000 for the erection of two bus shelters near the entrance to the proposed development. One on the northern side of St. Peter’s Valley Road on the inbound route to town and one on-site catering for outward-bound travel;
(4) the provision of “kick-start” funding for 2 additional buses in the morning and evening peak periods over 5 years (total financial contribution of £120,000);
(5) the provision of a public amenity area to the south of the approved housing development and a buffer strip along Le Perquage, with restrictions on future use;
(6)the provision of funds to meet the cost of off-site noise mitigation measures, involving:
- the installation of a high speed roller shutter door at the eastern end of the Jersey Steel factory;
- the erection of a lean-to structure over the main entrance door at the eastern end of the Jersey Steel factory;
- the erection of a close-boarded boundary fence to Jersey Steel’s premises along the boundary with Le Perquage;
- and any other measures deemed appropriate and reasonable by the Minister for Planning and Environment, in consultation with Health Protection, following submission of the required ‘noise scheme’.
(7) A mechanism to effect the future maintenance of public areas and facilities. This will address the arrangements to be put in place for the long-term management and maintenance of planting and soft landscaping, paved areas (including footpaths, cycleways, roads and courtyards / parking areas), open spaces (including the Public Amenity Area, village square, buffer zones and other communal open green spaces), community facilities (including the community building and the children’s and teenager’s play areas) and external lighting;
(8) The provision, transfer and maintenance of surface water drainage / flood amelioration works and infrastructure for foul drainage, including:
- funding the design and construction of the surface water and foul pumping stations, to the satisfaction of Transport and Technical Services;
- transferring the pumping stations and their sites, where appropriate, to the Public;
- providing funds to meet the cost of 20 years maintenance and the replacement of the pumps and control equipment after 20 years;
- providing funds to meet the cost of the loss of public car parking spaces to accommodate the surface water pumping station, and an additional sum for the loss of spaces during construction;
(9) the future maintenance of the proposed attenuation tanks;
(10) the restoration and maintenance of the fabric (principally the banks) of the Perquage watercourse and the watercourse south of fields 861 and 863A;
(11) the provision of a 12 month defect liability period for the Public for the road works, drainage infrastructure and any other relevant works.
N.B. In connection with the construction of the SW pumping station, there will also be normal contractual arrangements with Transport and Technical Services. The matters covered will include inter alia: safety; security; minimisation of dust, noise and vibration; keeping the surrounding area clean; condition surveys for adjacent properties, maintaining the integrity of the road; and hours of operation.
gov.je