The Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Public Inquiry Round Table Sessions Tuesday 26 April 2016 Discussion Paper

Transcription

1 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper Introduction The Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Public Inquiry Round Table Sessions Tuesday 26 April 2016 Paper 1. The purpose of this paper is to provide a basis for a structured round table discussion of proposed alterations to the States of Alderney Building and Development Control Committee Policy Guidance 2008 and Alderney Land Use Plan 2011, other than with respect to individual sites. The proposed alterations were published for public consultation on 18 March 2016 within documents now titled: Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Section 1: Policy Guidelines and Section 2: Sites, together with the cartographic map: Alderney Phase 1 Housing Land Use Plan These proposed changes arise from a first phase of the Committee s review of the Land Use Plan. As now proposed, the 2016 Plan includes a Vision for the Plan with Guiding Principles, plan outputs and new and changed Housing Policies. The remaining parts of the existing Land Use Plan and approved Policy Guidelines are proposed to be readopted without amendment. A second phase of the review, in 2017, is to consider the land use policies required for economic needs and the conservation of the natural environment and built heritage. This will be subject to its own future consultation and Public Inquiry. 3. All those who gave due notice of their intention to speak or be represented at the current phase 1 Public Inquiry, on issues not related to individual sites, are invited to attend and participate or be represented at the round table discussion. This will held on Tuesday 26 April 2016, commencing at 9.30 am and expected to be concluded that day. This and all subsequent sessions of the Inquiry will be in the Anne French Room, Island Hall, Royal Connaught Square. 4. The round-table discussion will not address the suitability or otherwise of individual sites for development. Where due notice has been given, individual sites will considered in turn on subsequent days of this Inquiry. 5. As a minimum, participants at the round-table sessions need copies of the proposed: Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Section 1: Policy Guidelines, and Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Section 2: Sites Alderney Phase 1 Housing Land Use Plan They may find it helpful, for comparison purposes, to have copies of the existing: Policy Guidance 2008, and Land Use Plan A key background document is the: B&DCC Land Use Review Housing Strategy (Feb 2016) 1

2 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper TOPICS FOR DEBATE BACKGROUND TOPICS 8. These initial background topics were not in the previously circulated Draft of this paper but arise following the Pre Meeting on 18 April. Housing Strategy process 9. I listened to the States meeting on 20 April, and in particular to Billet d Etat on the Housing Strategy and the much shorter discussion regarding the Designated Area boundary. Perhaps Mr Birmingham could start today s discussion with update on anything arising from that meeting of the States. 10. Other participants thoughts? Data 11. Can the Committee representatives cast any further light on the actual number of existing dwellings in the Island? What does Fig 12 in the Housing Strategy illustrate? 12. Views of other participants are invited. Call for Sites 13. Could the Committee representatives clarify in principle the future status intended say following a planning application with respect to the conclusions reached in the Arup Call for Sites Assessment. NB discussion on this (and indeed all) topics today must not be directed to individual sites. 14. Views of other participants are invited. Phased approach 15. Could the Committee representatives confirm the future stages with respect to the review of the Land Use Plan? 16. View of other participants are invited. ALDERNEY LAND USE PLAN 2016 SECTION 1: POLICY GUIDELINES Chapter 1: Introduction to the Land Use Plan 17. The alterations here mainly comprise updates to reflect the new document titles. 18. Paragraphs and would include Supplementary Planning Guidance and also Conservation Areas within the ambit of the Land Use Plan. Currently they fall within the somewhat separate Policy Guidelines. I asked a process related questions regarding this at the Inquiry Pre Meeting, subject to that I would now welcome participants views regarding this seemingly modest change. My point is that whereas modifications to the Land Use Plan require processes laid down by Alderney Law, the foot of page 1 to the proposed Section 2: Sites refers to the Land Use Plan being supported by supplementary planning guidance, which can be updated and amended by the Committee at any time 2

3 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper 19. Moving on, 1.4 summarises the current changes and an intention for further updates in 2017 to take account of economic, natural environment and built heritage aspirations. There was little by way of public consultation responses directly on this aspect, however the question did arise as to whether the Land Use Plan s economic objectives ought in fact to be settled in advance of the housing objections. That the former should be a determinant of the latter. Do participants agree or disagree with this view? If so, for the present should the proposed housing objectives be modified, qualified or remain essentially unaltered? Chapter 2: General 20. The legal context set out at 2.1 remains unaltered, however Rosemary Hanbury has raised a question as to whether the Land Use Plan should apply to the States. I have interpreted this question as meaning are States development proposals subject in the same way as others to the provisions of the Land Use Plan? An alternative interpretation might be whether the B&DCC are bound by the provisions of the Land Use Plan in its determination of submitted planning applications. I would be interested to hear first from the Committee representatives and then open the matter for wider discussion. 21. Paragraph 2.2 introduces the Committee s intention, for the first time, to introduce an overall vision statement for the Land Use Plan. No one challenged this intention or suggested any alternative wording. Do participants see value in setting out an overall vision preceding and shaping the policy framework? 22. Following their proposed Vision Statement, the Committee then propose to introduce six Guiding Principles set out at 2.3. Again there has been no specific challenge or suggested modification to these guiding principles, although participants are invited now to express any thoughts. 23. The Committee concluded this part of the proposed Plan with what they envisage as the Plan Outputs at 2.4, which aims to increase the resident population, economically active population and, although not expressly stated, the figures would reduce the dependency ratio between those of working and non-working age. 24. The terms of reference for this Public Inquiry require that The Inspector is to have regard to the States of Alderney s population projections (including projected rates of net migration) but not to examine or report on those projections. The reason for this is that the population projections are an input to the Land Use Plan something that the Plan must take into account but are not themselves an aspect of the Plan. At the procedural pre meeting for this inquiry, held last week, an update for current census figures was sought. The States team are asked to provide that again now briefly and confirm whether or not it significantly affects the current published Land Use Plan proposals. 3

4 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper A number of respondents to the public consultation questioned the realism and/or desirability of relying on such an increase. Mr Noone, for example, questioned whether the proposed Plan might risk an imbalance between an excessive supply and insufficient demand for new homes. The Alderney Society refer to what they describe as an heroic assumption. Mr Reeves echoes that when referring to lower prices, lower rents and lower wages in the building industry. Views are invited from participants. The published figures amount to 100 new dwellings in the Island over the next 5 years and a total of 400 over the next 20 years, that is to say an average of 20 annually. There are several aspects to consider: likely demand, capacity of the building industry and capacity in the sense of land availability, infrastructure and environmental impact. I invite participants views on these key considerations. The intention to end the existing Class C Permit limitations is subject to a change in Alderney Law rather than something directly arising from the Land Use Plan proposals, but plainly there is a close association between the two. From all that I have read, the intention to end the Class C Permit system appears widely supported. Is that the case, and if so how do participants see the change affecting future residential development in the Island? Aside from the actual numbers, does the degree of compliance with population projections in 2021 and 2036 provide an appropriate metric against which to judge the success of the Land Use Plan as currently proposed? Do the changes projected with respect to ratios of economically active population to the remainder of the population have implications for the Land Use Plan? Do the changes projected with respect to average household size have implications for the Land Use Plan? 25. The ensuing General policy principles at 2.5 and 2.6 currently remain unaltered. A number of respondents challenged whether the proposed Land Use Plan, and more particularly the Arup Call for Sites Assessment, properly reflects the listed principles with response to particular locations. Whether, for example, a particular site has adequate access or its development would not be detrimental to the reasonable enjoyment of adjoining properties. Those submissions, insofar as they refer to particular sites, will be considered subsequently when I address that site. For the round table discussion, I wish to hear participants views regarding the listed principles. No specific changes to the wording has been suggested; leaving aside their application to particular sites, do participants agree that the principles listed should continue to guide development decisions? Is the list comprehensive or should other principles have been added? Chapter 3: Design & the built environment 26. No alterations are currently proposed with respect to Chapter 3 and there has been no contrary suggestion in response to the public consultation. Chapter 4: Town Centre 27. No alterations are currently proposed with respect to Chapter 4, policies for St Anne Town Centre, and no submissions were made with respect to this during the public consultation stage. 4

5 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper Chapter 5: Housing 28. This section of the Plan has been substantially redrafted and as might be expected gave rise to the most responses during the public consultation stage. It opens at 5.1 with an outline of the intended policy context before listing 5 policy principles. Before looking at each of these in more detail in turn, do participants agree with the overall approach? Should there be any other housing principle, as was well as those listed, to guide future residential development? 29. Each of those principles is then addressed in reasoned policies at 5.2, set out below in turn, starting with: Meet Housing Needs of the Island s Residents, Policy HOU1, and its supporting text. The approach stresses a need for flexibility referring to UK Lifetime Homes Standards as a useful reference. From what I have read, the aims of Policy HOU1 appears to be generally supported, or at any rate not opposed. Mr Noone for example welcomes making the household stock, that is to say non-institutional dwellings, more suitable for elderly residents. Similarly with respect to the provision of annexes. Do other participants agree? Although not directly within the scope of a Land Use Plan, tax and other factors have been described as barriers to the provision of adequate housing in quantity and quality. Do participants agree? Are these matters for the wider ranging Housing Strategy? Mr Bliss has submitted a paper which he titles The True Role of Second Homes on Alderney. Where do participants stand on this topic or more broadly on the question of possible under-utilisation of the existing housing stock? In relation to the sub-division of properties, Ms Hanbury has queried D permits. Further information on this is sought and comments invited. Mr and Mrs Hempel question where replacement large houses might be built following sub-division of existing larger properties within the Building Area? Meet Housing Needs of New Residents, Policy HOU2 and its supporting text, including a requirement for an Employment Strategy to support any such major application. Again Mr Noone has commented, suggesting that the approach is more appropriate for somewhere such as London rather than Adlerney. I invite participants views Ensure an Adequate Supply of Housing, Policy HOU3 and its supporting text. This part of the proposed Plans opens with Alderney is a small island state; land is a finite resource that must be thoughtfully and efficiently used. No one would I think dispute that. However, how that aim is to be achieved is less straightforward. The proposed Policy sets out sequential preferences, lettered a) to f) for the location of new housing. 5

6 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper At the outset I invite participants views regarding this sequence. Are the individual 6 categories the appropriate ones? Are they in the right sequential order? Should there be others? More particularly, Category b) Intensification, infill and redevelopment and/or subdivision within the Central Building Area lies behind a number of the submissions made. Where these refer to particular sites I will be considering subsequently during the inquiry process. As a generality, however, is the approach and its high sequential category justified by protection of the Designated Area while achieving additional housing supply? Category e) refers to residential development within a mixed use development at the Forts. The Forts are already subject more generally to Zone 8 policy, which remains unchanged other than a cross reference to HOU3. Rosemary Hanbury refers to public access to the Forts, but what do participants think about the possibility of some residential inclusion within mixed use developments? Could that be a mechanism for improved public access? 33. The final category f) within HOU3 leads onto Approach to strategic release of land in the Designated Area, Policy HOU4 and its supporting text. From all that I have read, it seems clear that there is wide support for continuing to safeguard the Designated Areas (Green Belt). What are participants views regarding the proposed HOU4, bearing in mind that it comes last in the sequentially preferable approaches to the provision of new housing? 34. Moving on from the Designated Area to the Building Area, the Plan proposes as follows: Approach to residential development in the Building Area, Policy HOU5 and its supporting text. 35. Little or nothing has been submitted regarding this proposed policy. The proposed Housing Character Areas (HCAs) referred to will be subject to more detailed discussion shortly. Subject to that, do participants agree that unless otherwise stated by the Land Use Plan, residential should be seen as the preferred use within the Building Area? 36. No further alterations are proposed within the Section 1 Policy Guidelines. ALDERNEY LAND USE PLAN 2016 SECTION 2: SITES 37. Today s round-table discussion now moves on to alterations proposed within the Alderney Land Use Plan 2016 Section 2: Sites, insofar as these alterations are of a general nature and not concerned with individual sites. Introduction 38. A substantially revised Introduction is proposed, first foreshadowing what is to follow before setting out the intended Purpose of the Land Use Plan. No specific points regarding this were raised in response to the consultation. Is there anything that participants would like to raise now? 39. Following a revised Contents list, the Plan addresses the Designated Area (Greenbelt). No current alterations are proposed, including with respect to 6

7 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper F Residential Zone. However, a new passage, headed Updated Guidelines is proposed, intended to enable alterations with respect to this Zone following amendments to the Building and Development Control (Alderney) Law Amongst other changes, these alterations would raise the upper size for residential extensions within the Designated Area from 15% to 50% of the property. At the Pre Meeting last week I was advised that the proposed Updated Guidelines are intended to enable the new higher limit to come into effect automatically following the required amendment to the Law. Can that be confirmed now at the Inquiry. From all that I have read, the proposed change appears to be generally though not universally welcomed. Am I right about that? Mr and Mrs Hempel query where the process might end, linking it to their concerns regarding the sub-division of larger properties within the Building Area. I think that it was Mr Tugby who opposed the change at the States meeting last week? 41. Following the Properties index for the Designated Area Zones, the Plan addresses the Building Area, which has been redrafted and expanded, including its Introduction, which proposes the designation of 18 defined Housing Character Areas, each with its own Development Principles for the type, size and design of housing developments that are likely to be acceptable in that Area. Before looking in more detail at the various proposed Housing Character Areas, what do participants think about the concept itself? Mr Noone has asked whether the criteria contained in the 2011 Land Use Plan are intended to be no longer applicable but replaced by the proposed Section 1 Policy Guidelines. He refers in particular to the proposed Housing Character Area 11 (HCA11) with respect to Les Rochers, but his question also has more general application. The Committee representatives are asked first to respond followed by an opportunity for debate. 42. There follows a completely new section listing the proposed Housing Character Areas, with their intended Development Principles. I will highlight each in turn and invite participants view first regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the defined extents of each proposed HCA and then regarding their respective proposed Development Principles. 43. Following the table on Housing Character Area the Plan then addresses 11, primarily non-residential, Zones within the Building Area retained from the existing Plan. 44. The introductory paragraphs with respect to Zone 7 Harbour & Braye Bay Comprehensive Development Zone have been redrafted. No changes to the substantive policies for this Zone are proposed, and there were no comments made. Even so, the phrase unless it is considered by the Building and Development Control Committee to comply warrants consideration in my view. It would of course be for the B&DCC to judge whether or not any particular planning application within that Zone complied with the long term comprehensive design of the Harbour 7

8 Alderney Land Use Plan Round Table Paper and Baye Area but I do have reservations about embedding the Committee s consideration as a stated aspect of the policy. I welcome views regarding this. 45. As referred to above, no modification is proposed with respect to Zone 8 - Fort Zone other than an inserted cross reference to Policy HOU3. As with Zone 7, no alterations are proposed to the substantive policy for Zone 8 and again there were no comments made with respect to the insertion. 46. The final change proposed is a redrafting with respect to Zone 20 Whitegates (South Side) (AY1832). 47. Although identified as a Zone in the extant and proposed Land Use Plans, this locality is effectively a specific site, which was also subject to a Call for Sites submission, and has been subject to submissions. It will accordingly be addressed later in the Inquiry as with other individual sites. ANY OTHER MATTERS 48. Any relevant matters that Participants wish to raise that have not been addressed today. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS ON THE PLAN REVIEW 49. Any general views regarding the published Land Use Plan and review process. FEEDBACK ON THE ROUND TABLE FORMAT 50. Participants views regarding the round-table assessment format. 8