Policy Considerations (What are the presumptions) The Jersey Island Plan 2011 was adopted in June 2011 and as such the application now requires assessment against its policies. Given that the application was submitted well in advance of the adoption of the 2011 Plan, and has indeed been considered (in April 2010) against the content of the 2002 Plan, a comparative assessment between the 2002 and 2011 Policies is also provided (in italics). The key policies which are particularly relevant to this application are set out below, with a short assessment of whether the scheme is considered to comply. Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy – sets out that development will be concentrated in the Island’s Built-Up Area, as defined on the Proposals Map. This application is outside the Built-Up Area and within the Green Zone. Policy SP2 – Efficient Use of Resources – sets out that development should make the most efficient and effective use of land, energy, water resources and buildings to help deliver a more sustainable form and patters of sustainable development. In particular the proposed spatial distribution of new development should be designed to limit carbon emissions. This proposal is not well located for travel by any mode other than the private car, as it is outside any significant settlement. Further, the east of the Island is already well served by garden centres / nurseries (i.e. Belle Fleur and Ransoms) so geographic coverage does not significantly reduce the need to travel significantly within the Island. SP5 – Economic Growth and Diversification - A high priority is given to maintaining and diversifying the economy, by protecting employment land for employment uses, and providing new opportunities for employment use. This application does not deliver any strategic diversification of the economy and is a local operation. Policy SP6 – Reducing Dependence on the Car – applications for housing must be able to demonstrate that they will reduce dependence on the private car by providing for more environmentally friendly modes of transport. As with SP2 (above) This proposal is not well located for travel by any mode other than the private car, as it is outside any significant settlement. Further, the east of the Island is already well served by garden centres / nurseries (Belle Fleur and Ransoms) so geographic coverage does not significantly reduce the need to travel significantly within the Island. Policy G1 of the Jersey Island Plan 2002 considers “Sustainable Development” and it contains provisions which broadly align with SP1, SP3 and SP5 of the Jersey Island Plan 2011. Policy GD1 - General Development Considerations - states that development proposals will not be permitted unless the proposal contributes towards a more sustainable form and pattern of development, does not seriously harm the natural and historic environment, does not seriously harm the amenities of neighbouring uses, contributes or does not detract from the Island’s economy, contributes to reducing the dependence on the car, and is of a high quality of design. These matters are reviewed in the later sections of this Report. The provisions of GD1 in the Jersey Island Plan 2011 are in accordance with the content of Policy G2 “General Development Considerations” in the Jersey Island Plan 2002. Policy GD8 - Percentage for Art - states that the Minister will encourage the contribution of a percentage of design and development costs to the provision of public art. This repeats the provisions of Policy BE12 from the Jersey Island Plan 2002. No Percentage for Art submission has been received. NE7 – Green Zone - This policy establishes a general presumption against all forms of new development for whatever purpose. However, the policy then sets out a series of possible exceptions which may be permitted where the scale, location and design would not detract from, or unreasonably harm the character and scenic quality of the area. The ‘possible exceptions’ include: 6. conversions of existing buildings to appropriate and non- intrusive commercial uses in accordance with ERE4 - 'Change of Use And/Or Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings' and ERE5 - 'Change of Use And/Or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings'; 8. suitable proposals for diversification in the agriculture industry in accordance with policy ERE2 - 'Diversification Of Agriculture And The Rural Economy'; The policy also includes that,” large scale developments will be not be permitted, unless they are proven to be in the Island interest.” The equivalent policy in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 would be C6, where the same general provisions apply. The proposal is outside the general terms of NE7, and the assessment against the other referenced policies within NE7 is considered later in this Report. ER2 – Protection and Promotion of St Helier for Shopping - This establishes the objective of protecting and promoting the St Helier as the main retail centre of the island. Proposals for new retail development outside the core retail area will not be permitted except where they accord with Policy ER3 “Protection and Promotion of Local Shopping Centres”, Policy ER4 “Development of Local Shops” and Policy ER7 “Large Scale Food Retailing”. This framework reflects the general provisions of Policy IC13 from the Jersey Island Plan 2002. ER8 – Large-Scale Non-Food Retailing - Proposals for large-scale non-food retailing will only be permitted where it will not cause detriment to the vitality or viability of St Helier Town Centre, is accessible by a choice of means of transport, provides adequate servicing and deliveries, and waste facilities. Applications must be accompanied by evidence of retail impact to show the proposals would not undermine the vitality and viability of the town centre, to include the quantitative and qualitative need and the sequential approach from Policy SP3. This policy expands on the framework in the Jersey Island Plan 2002, and is explicit in relation to the necessary information which should accompany such proposals. ER10 – Retail Development Outside the Built-Up Area - This policy establishes a presumption against new retail development outside the Built Up Area, except for in exceptional circumstances – with the maximum size normally being 100 sq m. ER11 – Farm Shops - Such proposals will be permitted where the enterprise is ancillary to an existing related economic activity, and accords with ER2 and ER3, and where the development is not more than 100 sq m. Win the 2002 Island Plan the provisions of ER10 and ER11 are set out in IC18 and IC20, with the exception of the 100 sq m size threshold. ERE2 – Diversification of Agriculture and the Rural Economy - Diversification (such as organic production, product processing or environmental management) are supported, where they support a viable rural economy. The equivalent policy in the Jersey Island Plan 2002 is C15 ERE4 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Traditional Farm Buildings - The proposal is not in a traditional farm building, and so does not require assessment against this policy ERE5 - Change of Use And / Or Conversion of Modern Farm Buildings - There is a presumption against the conversion of such buildings, unless the redundancy to the unit and to the agricultural industry as a whole has been proven. The, the first consideration would be for alternative economic uses, such as light industry or warehousing. No assessment against these policy requirements has been submitted. The policy framework has the same general requirements as C18 in the Jersey Island Plan 2002. ERE7 – Derelict and Redundant Glasshouses - There is a presumption against the redevelopment of redundant and derelict glasshouses for other uses. Where they are surplus to the requirements of the user they should be advertised for use within the industry. No assessment against these policy requirements have been submitted. Policy C20 of the 2002 Plan considered the same issue, with a generally comparable policy framework. TT3 – Cycle Routes - Applications for large new developments, such as shopping, in the Eastern Cycle Route network will be assessed to determine their potential to contribute towards the further development of the Eastern Cycle Route network and may be required to contribute directly through the provision of a section of cycle path, or to enter into an agreement to make an appropriate financial contribution to the development or enhancement of the network. No contribution to the Eastern Cycle Network has been made This is a new policy in the 2011 Plan. In relation to the Green Zone policy framework, the proposal falls outside the provisions of ERE4, 5 and 7 as the site is not a traditional farm building, and no demonstration of redundancy has been made. Further, the proposal has not been submitted on the basis of the diversification of agriculture. Additionally, as a Farm Shop, or other retail use outside the Built-Up Area, the proposal is considerably over the indicated 100 sq m threshold (the garden Centre development actually extends to 2,100 sq m gross). Given that the range of goods to be traded from the Garden Centre are now approved for sale at the Farm Shop there is not considered to be any quantitative or qualitative need for additional retail floorspace, and as such the proposal fails to comply with ER2 and ER8 as an inappropriate non-food out of town retail development. Land Use Implications The application proposes the (retrospective) introduction of a garden centre retail outlet on a site within the Green Zone. The outlet would trade in both produce propagated on the wider glasshouse site, and other ‘garden centre’ products, including bulky goods. Size, Scale & Siting The area of the application seeks retail floorspace of about 2,100 sq m. Approximately one-third of this space is external. Design & Use of Materials n/a Impact on Neighbours The surrounding complex is generally in the ownership of the applicant and there are no direct impacts on neighbours. Access, Car parking and Highway Considerations The consultation response from T&TS Highways identifies the continued need for off-site highway works to the junction of La Rue de Fauvic and La Rue Au Long. As was set out in the “Introduction” section of this Report, the applicant has confirmed that they cannot provide the specified improvements, as the required land is outside their control, and the third party is not willing to provide the necessary agreement. The applicant has now set out their view that the States have the ability to control the junction under the Roads Administration Law 1960. This issue has been discussed with T&TS Highways, who have confirmed that the highway authority can only carry out work with the consent of the relevant landowner. The Law does not include the ability for the States to carry out the work, and therefore the Law cannot realistically be used to force an improvement at the relevant junction. Irrespective of the provisions in the Road Administration Law 1960, it is a fundamental requirement of the planning system that an applicant must take responsibility for the impacts of their own proposals. The States are not in a position to mitigate the impacts of private development projects. The applicant has, to some extent, already acknowledged this at the approved redevelopment of Fauvic Farm (P/2010/1102) where the third party applicant needed consent of the Holme Grown owner to deliver the visibility splays for the revised Fauvic Farm entrance. The Holme Grown owner then counter-signed the application forms with the relevant land being included in the site-edged-red (so enabling planning conditions to be enforced). If the subject applicant really believed it was the responsibility of the States to improve highways junctions to facilitate private development projects, then surely they would not have counter-signed the Fauvic Farm application. The only difference in circumstances is that in this application, the applicant seems to be dealing with an unwilling third party, otherwise, Fauvic Farm context confirms it is the responsibility of the applicant to facilitate an acceptable scheme with the relevant owners. It is further material that the original T&TS Highways objection was to both the Farm Shop and the retrospective Garden Centre. Given that the Farm Shop is now approved (primarily on the basis of the content of the P/2005/1178 permission) and given the increase in traffic from the committed Farm Shop scheme the need for visibility improvements is now even more pressing. Foul Sewage Disposal To the foul sewer Landscaping issues No landscape works are proposed. Other Material Considerations No offer has been made in relation to Percentage for Art or the Eastern Cycle Route |