FEC Speech in response to P1/2010 – Waterfront Planning Application – Zephyrus
Sir,
Before responding to the points raised by the Deputy of St Mary in his proposition, I would like to explain to Members what the Zephyrus planning application is and the process that is being undertaken.
The Planning Application known as Zephyrus was submitted by the Waterfront Enterprise Board to the Planning and Environment Department on the 3rd August 2009.
The scheme is for 59 residential apartments in 5 buildings with ground floor commercial space and underground parking and storage.
It is located on the waterfront on a site in near proximity to the Radisson Hotel, and will sit between the Esplanade Quarter development and the Hotel.
The Department decided upon receipt of the application and following further discussions with the applicant, that the scheme required an Environmental Impact Assessment to be carried out.
The Environmental Impact Statement was received on the 20th October 2009.
This Statement covers issues including, traffic and transport, air quality, community and socio economics, noise and vibration, wind micro climate, daylight and sunlight, water resources, ground conditions, waste and telecommunications.
This proposition is requesting me to delay a consideration of this application until I have formally presented my response to the States, on the Scrutiny review of the Energy from Waste scheme and its EIA, and the other issues which the Scrutiny panel have considered.
As I previously stated in the house in December in reply to the Deputy, as the Minister responsible for the discharge of the planning system, I have a duty to deal with planning applications submitted in a reasonable time.
The principle of dealing with applications in a timely manner is enshrined in planning case law. In this I am referring to a local case from the Royal Court in 1963. The reference is included within the Department’s formal comment on this proposition.
For information Wightman v. Island Dev. Cttee. (Royal Ct.), 1963 JJ 315,
In this local case, where after an unreasonably long delay in dealing with an application, the Royal Court directed that a decision had to be made by a particular date.
It is also a fundamental principle of British administrative law to make decisions in an expeditious manner - in effect, it should take no longer than is necessary to collect all the information that is material to the case, to consider it, and to make the decision.
Failure to do this may also impact on an individual's human rights and may put the Department in a position to be legally challenged.
In addition to this, the Department has a published performance standard for planning applications of 13 weeks from receipt to determination. The determination target date for this application following the receipt of the EIS was therefore 19th January 2010.
What I can say is that this application has been properly received, duly considered and is now ready for a determination.
The consideration of this application and its EIS, is carried out by qualified planning officers, environmental protection staff, including water and waste specialists, environment policy specialists, ecology experts amongst others and consultations are carried out with many third parties external to the States and the public.
I do not consider it is legally appropriate to link this planning application to the Scrutiny review undertaken of the Energy from Waste EIA process and a review of other environmental and constructions issues on the La Collette site.
The Zephyrus application is not related, they are not by the same developer, and are for different types of development.
The only link between the two are that they are both in coastal locations and are both subject to the EIA process.
I therefore do not consider that the link should be made to a Scrutiny review of a past planning decision and due legal process should be followed.
This is what Members, the applicant and the public expect of the planning system.
In terms of responding to Scrutiny, I am surprised that the report accompanying this proposition seems to rely heavily on a draft of the Scrutiny report which has not yet/only just been released.
My Department has a good history and relationship with the Environment Scrutiny Panel and we have always responded to reviews in full. I have already given this assurance in respect of the review of the Energy from Waste Plant and La Collette site.
I am a strong supporter of the Scrutiny process, have always been very open and cooperative with it, and therefore I think due process should be allowed to take place in this case.
In terms of reporting the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Zephyrus scheme to the States Assembly. I am very happy to take representations on this planning application into account when the scheme is determined, and as such I offer this option to all States Members.
However, I do not consider it appropriate that a current planning application is discussed in the States Assembly. Members will be aware that the responsibility for Planning matters lies with the Planning and Environment Minister. The report into this planning application will be a public document in due course, and will cover all relevant issues pertaining to this application.
This will be made available to States Members if they would like a copy.
Again, I feel that due process should be allowed to take place in relation to this planning application.
The Deputy is also requesting that I report a current criminal investigation into an alleged pollution incident to this house.
This was also subject to a question earlier in this sitting.
I can confirm that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into an alleged breach of the Water Pollution Law 2000.
My Officers are bound by strict protocols when carrying out criminal investigations. To ensure that a fair outcome is achieved, they must be carried out having regard to all appropriate rules of evidence, police procedures and human rights obligations.
I would therefore ask the Deputy to support our officers by understanding that in more complex cases the timescales are likely to be elongated. Investigations are not time limited and our officers are progressing well to ensure that a case file can be submitted to the Law Officers.
I give my assurances to the Deputy and to States Members that we will be bringing this to a conclusion as soon as is possible and in a manner that ensures the correct outcome for Jersey’s environment.
I therefore do not think it is appropriate at this time to report to the House on this matter. Once a resolution has been reached. I will be pleased to update Members.
The Deputy does take the position that environmental pollution has occurred at the La Collette site and at Castle Quays. Whilst an investigation is underway in relation to one incident at La Collette, there is no action underway or any environmental protection concerns in relation to Castle Quays. Therefore we do not accept the position the Deputy is taking in assuming environmental pollution just because development is occurring next to the coast.
My department is continually learning from best practice and this is improving it regulatory function.
My Department has strengthened the Environmental legislation applying to the Island immeasurably since the year 2000 and lessons are continually applied and our regulatory function continues to mature.
As I have already said, the department will be responding to the Scrutiny report on the EIA process in full, and this response will show how practice has developed in the period since 2006 when the EIA was submitted to the Department.
Whilst I am very supportive of the Deputy’s overall desire to protect and enhance the Environment, I would urge him to work closely with my Department and the environmental professionals and specialists we have the benefit of employing that allows this to take place.
It is for the reason of allowing due legal process to take place, that I cannot support his proposition.
I therefore urge Members not to support this proposition, but to allow my department to get on with its job of environmental regulation and to allow due legal process to be followed.
gov.je