Wednesday 21 June 2017
Concerning Resolutions 7 & 8 arising from the Island Development Plan debate.
THE CASE FOR MAKING TARIFF PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING CONTRIBUTIONS
Sir,
On the 2nd November 2016, the States resolved to adopt the Island Development Plan having considered the recommendations of the Development & Planning Authority as set out in Billet d'État No XXVII, Dated 18th October 2016.
Following that very lengthy and involved debate, the States resolved, in Resolution 8, as follows:-
"To note that Policy GP11 of the Island Development Plan makes permission to construct dwellings subject, in certain circumstances, to a proportion of the developable area being allocated for affordable housing; and to direct the Development & Planning Authority, in consultation with the Committee for Employment & Social Security and the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure, to examine the case for an alternative requirement for developers to make a tariff payment equivalent to the value of the land which Policy GP11 would require to be set aside for affordable housing; and to direct that by no later than the 30th of April, 2017 the Authority shall submit a policy letter on this matter together with any propositions which it considers appropriate."
Sir, in relation to this States Resolution, Members will recall that the States also agreed, as a result of the Roffey Amendment, to change the lower threshold for provision of affordable housing in Policy GP11 from 5 units as originally proposed to 20 or more residential units.
The Authority commenced the drafting of a policy letter as directed by the States Resolution, Sir, but quickly realised that, as a result of this change in the affordable housing threshold in the IDP, the likely benefits of a system of tariffs payments in respect of sites of 20 units or more under Policy GP11 would be, at best, negligible.
To put it another way, Sir, with the change in threshold, there would be very limited, if any, circumstances when tariff payments might practically be used in lieu of affordable housing contributions.
Sir, in the light of the changes that were made by the States when approving the IDP through the amendment of Policy GP11, the Authority is looking at this matter in detail to determine whether a system of tariffs in lieu of affordable housing is viable or worthwhile and what other options there may be.
I believe that this is a sensible and pragmatic response in the circumstances, Sir, and I hope that other Members of the Assembly will agree with me on this.
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AT OATLANDS VILLAGE
Sir, following the debate on the Island Development Plan, the States also resolved, in Resolution 7:
"To direct the Development & Planning Authority, after consultation with other relevant committees of the States, to determine which changes would need to be made to legislation or policy in order to establish a gateway for the provision of comparison and convenience retail development on the current site of Oatlands Village that supports the continued viability of this site as a valuable tourist attraction for the Island; and if, during the course of the work and consultation described above, it becomes clear that such a gateway could not be established without first altering the Strategic Land Use Plan also to direct the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure to consider whether it should exercise its powers under Section 5(2) of the Land Planning and Development (Guernsey) Law, 2005 to propose such alteration to the Plan; and also to direct that the Authority, and the Committee if appropriate, shall report its or their conclusions to the States in propositions and a policy letter or policy letters to be submitted to Her Majesty's Greffier by no later than the 30th of April, 2017."
In relation to this States Resolution, the Authority has engaged actively with the owner of the site and has also discussed the matter with the two States Members, Deputies Ferbrache and Merrett, who brought this successful amendment.
As a result of this positive engagement with the parties, and with the helpful assistance from the Law Officers of the Crown, a possible solution has been identified which does not require changes to existing legislation or policy. This involves the drafting of a Planning Covenant relating to retail use at Oatlands, under powers afforded by the 2005 Land Planning and Development Law.
The covenant will clarify in detail the retail uses that may be carried out at the Oatlands site as ancillary or incidental to the recognised principal use, without breaching planning Law or policy.
The Authority is confident that this covenant, when finalised, will achieve the outcome desired by the States and which has the support of the owner of the site and the Deputies who proposed the Amendment.
Thank you, Sir, for the opportunity to update the Assembly on these two matters on behalf of the Development & Planning Authority.
