PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
ENABLING DEVELOPMENT
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to enable the Minister for Planning and Environment to `consider a mechanism which would allow a proper, robust and transparent consideration of current proposals to undertake enabling development in support of the Island’s agricultural industry in advance of the adoption of a formal policy framework.
Introduction
The Rural Economy Strategy – P.112/2005 was approved by the States in July 2005 and introduced the concept of enabling development, which is specifically aimed at aiding the recovery of the rural economy.
Enabling development is development that is contrary to established planning policy in the Island Plan, but is permitted because it brings public benefits that have been demonstrated to clearly outweigh any harm that would be caused by the development. The benefits are paid for by the value added to land as a result of the granting of planning permission for its development: enabling development can thus be considered a type of public subsidy.
The defining characteristics of enabling development is that it is contrary to established planning policy and that the gain from contravening policy subsidises a public benefit that could not otherwise be achieved. Thus, unlike most planning applications, financial issues are central to determining proposals for enabling development.
Since the strategy was approved enquiries have been received from farmers and two proposals have been submitted which are based on the principle of enabling development (in support of reinvestment in the agricultural industry) as proposed in the Rural Economy Strategy.
Background
In approving the strategy, the States agreed that the then Environment and Public services Committee should:
‘Review current planning policies, with the aim of facilitating ‘enabling or linked’ development in the countryside, in order to ensure planning gains, environmental improvements and reinvestment in the rural economy, and bring forward for debate appropriate recommended changes to the countryside policies in the Island Plan’. (States minutes dated 19 July 2005).
The strategy promotes the development of enabling or linked development that could provide an element of cross-subsidy in planning gain terms, but being careful to ensure that the financial gain to the landowner from the development permitted is commensurate with the investment necessary for new facilities to be constructed.
Importantly, the strategy states that any revision to the planning policy should reflect the general principle that unrelated construction should not be the automatic ‘first resort’ of rural business seeking to fund the modernisation of their core operations.
A copy of the States minute is appended to this report.
The Strategic Plan 2006 – 2011, commits to maintaining and enhancing a strong, successful and environmentally sustainable economy and identifies the implementation of the Rural Economic Strategy as one of a number of ways to achieve this.
The Planning & Environment Business Plan 2007 refers to the implementation of the Rural Economic Strategy in Key Objective EMR E3, which seeks to achieve a diverse working countryside and a wide range of rural enterprises, and Key Objective PP1 (c) proposes the introduction of planning guidance to enable the development of the Rural Strategy objectives.
2002 Island Plan: The 2002 Island Plan countryside zone, policy C6, makes a presumption against non agricultural development, however paragraph C6(x) does provide discretion to permit non agricultural development to occur if it has been proven to be in the Island interest and cannot practically be located elsewhere.
Forthcoming supplementary planning guidance: work has been ongoing to develop and publish supplementary planning guidance to facilitate enabling development and the conservation of the countryside. In the face of other competing Ministerial priorities, this remains a working draft.
Current Applications and Enquiries
Since the States approval of the Rural Economic Strategy, several tentative enquiries have been received and the department currently has two planning applications.
Current Applications
Cowley Farm (PP/2007/1799)
Convert existing barns into 3 No. dwellings. Construct 3 No. dwellings with garaging and landscaping. Block up 3 No. vehicular access. Create new vehicular access onto La Route de Maufant. Refurbish farmhouse to provide 1 No. dwelling.
Les Tours Farm (P/2007/2748)
Demolish existing glasshouses and associated structures. Construct 2 dwellings. Remove polytunnels to field 774. Create meadow, orchard, track, fencing and scout cabin in field 658.
In addition to the current applications, the department has also received a number of tentative enquiries.
Discussion
The rapid structural changes facing agriculture require the agricultural industry to adapt. At the same time, the future use and management of the Island’s countryside remains at issue. A balance is needed between economic stimulation and the conservation of the island’s rural environmental and cultural heritage.
The encouragement of innovation and diverse activity in the countryside will engender change and require investment. It is proposed that enabling development – development which would normally be resisted as it is contrary to established policies but is permitted because the public benefits demonstrably outweigh any harm to other materials interests – may provide an appropriate mechanism to bring about some of this change in the rural economy.
Work is ongoing to provide policy and guidance in response to this situation. This work has not, however, been able to be progressed in response to the rapid investment and decision-making cycles faced by Island agriculturists who need clarity about their situation in order to determine their future in the industry. It is incumbent upon government to respond to these proposals and to best consider how best to do so.
Following the States decision to adopt the Rural Economy Strategy principle of enabling or linked development, it is considered to be a valid material consideration in the determination of current and future planning applications.
To facilitate consideration of these proposals that is robust, transparent and consistent as possible, it is considered that the working draft of the policy guidance is used as a framework for the assessment of these proposals (where ‘countryside asset’ refers to the whole farm holding), as follows;
Interim Policy Statement
There will be a general presumption against enabling development in support of agriculture which does not meet all of the following criteria:
- The enabling development will not significantly harm the archaeological, historic, biodiversity or landscape interest of the countryside asset or its constituent features, including the setting of important buildings;
- The proposal avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the countryside asset;
- The enabling development will secure the long term future of the countryside asset, and where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose;
- Adequate financial assistance is not available from any other source;
- It is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the countryside asset, and that its form minimises disbenefits;
- The value or benefit of the survival or enhancement of the countryside asset outweighs the long-term cost to the community (i.e. the disbenefits) of providing the enabling development.
Recommendations
- That the Rural Economy Strategy P.112/2005 is a material consideration to which the Minister will have regard in determining applications which propose enabling or linked development;
- That the Economic Development Department be consulted on all enabling development proposals at an early stage.
- Applicants will be required to clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Minister for Planning and Environment that :
- The enabling development will not significantly harm the archaeological, historic, biodiversity or landscape interest of the countryside asset or its constituent features, including the setting of important buildings;
- The proposal avoids detrimental fragmentation of management of the countryside asset;
- The enabling development will secure the long term future of the countryside asset, and where applicable, its continued use for a sympathetic purpose;
- Adequate financial assistance is not available from any other source;
- It is demonstrated that the amount of enabling development is the minimum necessary to secure the future of the countryside asset, and that its form minimises disbenefits;
- The value or benefit of the survival or enhancement of the countryside asset outweighs the long-term cost to the community (i.e. the disbenefits) of providing the enabling development.
Reason(s) for Decision
To provide the Minister for Planning and Environment with an assessment mechanism which will allow a proper, robust and transparent process of considering proposals which are based on the principle of enabling development and support the Island’s agricultural industry, as outlined in the Rural Economy Strategy – P.112/2005 and in this interim policy statement.
Action Required
To inform the Planning Applications Panel, its officers and the Island Plan Review team that the principles of enabling development, outlined in the Rural Economy Strategy – P.112/2005 will be a material consideration and the mechanism outlined in the interim policy statement in this report will be taken into consideration when assessing proposals to undertake enabling development in support of the Island’s agricultural industry.
Written by: | Tony Gottard, Principal Planner |
| |
Approved by: | Kevin Pilley, Assistant Director Policy & Projects |
| |
Endorsed by: | Peter Thorne, Director of Planning |
Attachments:
- States Minute Date 19 July 2005
1/06
29 Janaury 2008
States Minute Date 19 July 2005
Rural Economy Strategy – P.112/2005 - Comments and Amendments
The States commenced consideration of the proposition of the Economic Development Committee concerning a rural economy strategy and granted leave to the Connétable of St. Helier to withdraw his amendment that at the end of paragraph (v), after the words “achievement of these standards”, there be inserted the words “which will include the provision of increased public access to the countryside”.
THE STATES, following further consideration, granted leave to the President of the Economic Development Committee to withdraw paragraph (iv)(C) of the proposition that the States agree that, in order to support the transition of the High Value Glass and the Dairy sectors into more efficient operations that are less dependent on Government intervention, the Environment and Public Services Committee, together with the Economic Development Committee, should work with the dairy industry to identify a mechanism that can operate within the context of a closed herd and still allow very strictly controlled exceptions to the general ban on the importation of cattle semen so as to allow the importation, under licence, of highly selected genetic material of Jersey lineage to increase the efficiency of the Island’s milking herd.
THE STATES, adopting a proposition of the Economic Development Committee, referred to their Act dated 7th July 2004, in which they approved the Fiscal Strategy and agreed that a target for economic growth of 2% per annum should be set for the period 2005 to 2009, and requested the Economic Development Committee, in conjunction with other Committees as necessary, to bring forward, for approval by the States, a strategy for the delivery of this growth by February 2005; and referred to the States Strategic Plan Objective 1.2.3 To develop a strategy which will explore and promote new opportunities for the rural economy, Objective 4.1.3 To protect and promote Jersey’s environment as one of its most important assets, and Objective 1.3.1 To reduce unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy in the Island, and –
received the Rural Economy Strategy entitled “Growing the Rural Economy”, as set out in the report of the Economic Development Committee dated 2nd June 2005, and in order to give effect to the recommendations made in the strategy –
(i) agreed that, in order to stimulate the rural economy and to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship –
(A) the Economic Development Committee should take the necessary steps to establish a Rural Initiative Scheme that was consistent with the approach of the Economic Growth Plan to encouraging enterprise;
(B) the Environment and Public Services Committee and the Economic Development Committee should take steps to encourage small-scale entry into the agricultural industry by recognising a new category of agricultural land occupancy, the Smallholder, who would be eligible for area support payments.
(ii) agreed that the Environment and Public Services Committee should review current planning policies, with the aim of facilitating ‘enabling or linked’ development in the countryside, in order to ensure planning gains, environmental improvements and reinvestment in the rural economy, and bring forward for debate appropriate recommended changes to the countryside policies in the Island Plan.
(iii) agreed that, in order to reduce bureaucracy, simplify administration and lead to more effective government intervention –
(A) the Economic Development Committee should consolidate the present range of agricultural crop subsidies into a Single Area Payment;
(B) the Economic Development Committee and the Environment and Public Services Committee should work together to establish a ‘one-stop shop’ approach to rural policy and delivery.
(iv) agreed that, in order to support the transition of the High Value Glass and the Dairy sectors into more efficient operations that were less dependent on Government intervention –
(A) the Economic Development Committee, supported by the Finance and Economics Committee, should roll forward the planned subsidy payments for the High Value glass sector for the period 2006 to 2008 in to a single payment made in 2006 with the level of support thereafter should be reduced to the basic Single Area payment;
(B) the Economic Development Committee should, in addition to the Single Area Payment make available additional, but transitional, support funding, to be known as the Quality Milk Payment;
(v) agreed that, in order to protect and promote the environment, the Economic Development Committee, working with the Environment and Public Services Committee, should establish a system of standards for basic environmental performance of the agricultural industry and that the payment of agricultural subsidies should be made conditional upon the achievement of these standards.
Members present voted as follows –
POUR: 33 | | CONTRE: 8 | | ABSTAIN: 0 |
| | | | |
Senator J.A. Le Maistre | | Connétable of St. Martin | | |
Senator S. Syvret | | Connétable of St. Ouen | | |
Senator L. Norman | | Connétable of St. Brelade | | |
Senator F.H. Walker | | Deputy G.C.L. Baudains (C) | | |
Senator P.V.F. Le Claire | | Deputy P.N. Troy (B) | | |
Senator P.F. Routier | | Deputy J.A. Martin (H) | | |
Senator M.E. Vibert | | Deputy G.P. Southern (H) | | |
Connétable of St. Mary | | Deputy of Grouville | | |
Connétable of St. Peter | | | | |
Connétable of St. Clement | | | | |
Connétable of St. Helier | | | | |
Connétable of St. Lawrence | | | | |
Connétable of Grouville | | | | |
Connétable of St. John | | | | |
Deputy of Trinity | | | | |
Deputy R.C. Duhamel (S) | | | | |
Deputy A. Breckon (S) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Martin | | | | |
Deputy T.J. Le Main (H) | | | | |
Deputy M.F. Dubras (L) | | | | |
Deputy J.L. Dorey (H) | | | | |
Deputy F.G. Voisin (L) | | | | |
Deputy L.J. Farnham (S) | | | | |
Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (S) | | | | |
Deputy J.B. Fox (H) | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Bernstein (B) | | | | |
Deputy S.C. Ferguson (B) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Mary | | | | |
Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (H) | | | | |
Deputy M.A. Taylor (C) | | | | |
Deputy of St. Peter | | | | |
Deputy J.A. Hilton (H) | | | | |
Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (H) | | | | |
L:\Filing\Correspondence\1\06\MR - Enabling Development - 20080129.doc
gov.je