Urban Regeneration Scrutiny Review: Ministerial Response

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (22.07.2009) to present to the States, the Ministerial Response to the Scrutiny Review Report on Urban Regeneration.

Decision Reference: MD-PE-2009-0130
Decision Summary Title:	Response to the Environment Scrutiny Panel Urban Regeneration Review (S.R.15 /2008)		Date of Decision Summary:	21 July 2009
Decision Summary Author:	Assistant Director, Performance and Operations		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title:	Response to the Environment Scrutiny Panel Urban Regeneration Review (S.R.15 /2008)		Date of Written Report:	21 July 2009
Written Report Author:	Director, Planning and Building Services		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: Response of the Minister for Planning and Environment to the findings and recommendations of the Environment Scrutiny Panel Urban Regeneration Review (S.R.15 /2008)
Decision(s): The Minister approved the response to the Environment Scrutiny Panel’s Urban Regeneration Review (S.R.15 /2008) and agreed that it should be presented to the Chair of the Environment Scrutiny Panel and the States at the earliest opportunity.
Reason(s) for Decision: The Minister is required under Scrutiny protocols to formally respond to all relevant reports and reviews undertaken by Scrutiny Panels and to formally present his response to the Chair of the Scrutiny Panel and to the States for information.
Resource Implications: None
Action required: Planning and Environment Department to forward the Minister’s Response to the Greffe with a request that it be presented to the States for information as soon as possible.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Planning and Environment
Date Signed:		Date of Decision (If different from Date Signed):

Urban Regeneration Scrutiny Review: Ministerial Response

Urban Regeneration Review S.R.15 /2008

Response of the Minister for Planning and Environment to the Findings and Recommendations of the Environment Scrutiny Panel

Introduction

The Minister for Planning and Environment welcomes this report which outlines interesting ideas and suggestions which may be applicable to both St Helier and the rest of the Island.

He recognises that the Environment Scrutiny Panel are presenting an alternative approach to regeneration, as opposed to a more limited review of the urban regeneration proposals made in the St Helier Development and Regeneration Strategy (EDAW 2007).

A central theme of the report is that regeneration planning should be undertaken at the smallest definable community level and that there should be full community participation in producing a plan for each area. Whilst the Minister recognises the potential value of this approach, he believes an overarching strategic framework is still required. In addition, the community participation approach that is outlined in the report raises serious practical difficulties for a Department which has limited staff resources. Given these limitations, it is the Minister’s view that there is little option but to focus resources on producing plans for areas where there is a high likelihood of physical change. This change can be created by setting a strategic framework which guides the use, form and design of both new and refurbished buildings, and of open spaces.

The Minister’s more detailed response to the findings and recommendations of the report are outlined in the following table:

21 July 2009

	Finding/Recommendation	Response
1	Every community area when defined should take into account the needs of the inhabitants in the masterplan for its regeneration	It is agreed that the needs of individuals and communities need to be taken into account when masterplanning areas. This is usually achieved by meeting the main stakeholders and is followed by consultation on draft proposals.
2	Refurbishment and improvement are often more environmentally sustainable alternative for regeneration rather than demolition and reconstruction;	Agreed that they can be, and they are also relevant in retaining the character of areas. However redevelopment is also appropriate in the right circumstances and may often result in the more efficient use of land
3	Despite a raft of costly consultation documents and reports no masterplan has been forthcoming for the whole of the urban area;	The EDAW Strategy for the Regeneration and Development of St Helier (2007) was a strategic masterplan. It is proposed in the draft Island Plan that more detailed masterplans will be produced, including the recent North of Town Masterplan. Others are, or will be prepared for the western area of Town, Mont de La Ville, Five Oaks and for the East of Albert area. It is not considered necessary, or an effective use of limited resources to produce a detailed masterplan for the whole of the Island’s urban areas. The focus is, and will continue to be, on the areas that are most likely to see change through development.
4	Regeneration should be driven by community planning requirements although ad hoc developments if considered within the masterplan can play a useful part as catalysts for regeneration.	This is impractical, and again, is not an effective use of resources
5	The Planning Department should require a higher level of protection on open green spaces and amenities for residents.	The current and draft Island Plans already protect all public, and many private, areas of open ‘green’ and paved space, through policies that carry a presumption against development.
6	Identification of extended EPIAs should include all of the urban areas to protect the remaining backdrop green field areas.	The Scrutiny report identifies areas which could be designated EPIAs (a designation used in the 1987 Island Plan). Environmental Protection and Improvement Area plans were prepared and introduced for two areas within the ring-road, but for all the improvements they brought, primarily through traffic management and street improvement, they consumed a wholly disproportionate amount of the Department’s time. They could more easily (and cheaply) have been undertaken by the Parish of St Helier (as the highway authority)
7	Increased density by building higher can provide increased amenity space.	This is agreed
8	The Panel recommends that a definitive urban masterplan is drawn up	This is not wholly agreed. The draft Island plan and the more detailed masterplans will provide ‘greater’ St Helier with a sufficient and less prescriptive planning policy base.
9	The Panel recommends empowerment of communities to participate in the regeneration of their own areas.	This is agreed, but only up to a point. There is no reason why communities cannot be involved in producing plans and proposals for their local areas, but ultimately the legal responsibility for planning lies with the Minister for Planning and Environment
10	The Panel urges the extension of the EPIA model to include all of the urban areas around the town area including First Tower, Five Oaks and Georgetown encompassing outer areas such as Rue De Samares in St Clement.	This is fundamentally not agreed (see comment on finding 6 above). The appropriate approach to land use planning is to define strategic policy and then implement it at local level – not to work from the bottom upwards. This recommendation represents a huge amount of work (there are 40 EPIAs proposed) deriving, it is considered, only limited benefit
11	The Panel recommends an inclusive planning process involving the residents and businesses of the designated EPIAs	As comment on recommendation 2. above
12	The Panel recommends an investigation of schemes which would enable residents to purchase a share of amenity facilities likely to produce revenue	This is done indirectly through planning obligations on estate development to ensure that roads, open spaces, land and buildings are maintained, but also to engender a sense of ownership. It could be extended.
13	The Panel recommends a preference towards regeneration as opposed to demolition	This is supported by planning policies
14	The Panel recommends integrating heritage and contemporary buildings to increase density and to improve the sustainability of existing structures	This is agreed
15	The Panel recommends that the Minister decides, through consultation, the appropriate height of taller buildings in the urban area	This prescriptive policy is not agreed. The policy in the existing and draft Island Plan provides for an criterion-based assessment to be made on each case that might arise
16	The Panel recommends that when tall buildings are constructed in the urban areas they should include internal green floors to provide amenity space and enhanced standards of residential space	This is agreed
17	The Panel supports the inclusive ‘Bottom Up’ approach of the EPIA system	The Minister strongly disagrees with this recommendation
18	The Panel recommends the immediate implementation of previous sustainable transport measures such as the ‘cordon zone’ contained within successive Island Plans	This is a matter for the Minister of Transport and Technical Services – not Planning and Environment
19	The Panel recommends that all recommended traffic management policies should include proposed timescales	This is agreed
20	The Panel recommends that responsibility for the planning of transport within the urban areas should form part of the masterplan process and be within the remit of the Planning Minister	There is merit in this recommendation, which is noted and will be discussed between the respective Ministers for Transport and Planning
21	The Panel recommends that all car parks allocate spaces for the establishment of car club facilities	A car club scheme set up between the developer and a hire car company at a residential development in the central part of town was unsuccessful due to the low take-up by residents living there