In brief: A government-commissioned report co-written by Jersey’s current Planning Minister argues the island’s planning system imposes excessive costs and obstructs economic growth. The £10,250 review calls for faster decisions, reduced paperwork, smaller minimum housing sizes and tighter limits on neighbours’ rights to appeal. The government says its findings are being considered alongside other evidence.
A System Doing Too Much, Badly
Jersey’s planning system is “gold plated”, overly bureaucratic and more interested in preserving the past than building for the future. That, at least, is the verdict of a report prepared for Policy Centre Jersey by Sir Mark Boleat and Alan Merry, as the Jersey Evening Post reports. The timing is notable: Sir Mark has since been elected as a Senator and appointed Planning Minister, meaning the man now responsible for reforming the system is also the man who diagnosed its ailments.
The report, which cost £10,250, argues that much of the burden on applicants stems not from primary legislation but from guidance, conditions and administrative procedures that have accumulated over time. “The whole planning system attempts to do too much, covering not only planning but a wide range of social and economic issues which it is not well suited to do,” the authors write. It takes little account, they say, of the costs it imposes and gives “inadequate weight to other public policy objectives.”
Among the more eye-catching findings is the criticism of a 21-page validation document listing 55 separate requirements that applicants must satisfy before a planning application is even considered. The report describes many of these as unnecessarily onerous, particularly for smaller schemes. It recommends removing requirements for noise and crime impact assessments, relaxing demands for ecological and tree surveys, and substantially raising the thresholds at which transport statements and travel plans are required.
Heritage, Housing and the St Saviour’s Problem
The report takes particular aim at heritage protection, arguing that “undue weight is given to heritage issues at the expense of viability and other considerations.” As a concrete example, the authors point to the development brief for St Saviour’s Hospital, citing Andium’s estimate that converting Queen’s House would cost approximately £8.4 million more than the resulting homes would be worth. That is not a planning system facilitating housing supply; that is a planning system actively preventing it.
On housing standards more broadly, the report argues that Jersey’s higher minimum size requirements remove choice from people seeking smaller homes, and recommends that these be cut. For those who believe the market, rather than a planning officer’s ruler, should determine what housing people want to live in, this will be a welcome suggestion.
The report also proposes a series of procedural reforms. Minor planning decisions should be turned around in six weeks rather than eight, with a longer-term target of four weeks. Major applications should move from 12 weeks to nine. The window for lodging appeals should be cut from 28 days to seven, and the distance within which qualifying neighbours can appeal should be reduced from 50 metres to 30. The authors go further still, proposing that third-party appeals be abolished entirely once confidence in the system improves.
Caveats and Context
The report is not without its own acknowledgements of limitation. It concedes that planning services have improved significantly in recent years, and notes that its research involved discussions with a limited number of participants rather than a general call for evidence. Critics may reasonably point out that a review conducted without broad public consultation reflects a particular set of interests, namely those of developers and applicants, rather than the wider community.
The government has said the findings are being considered alongside other evidence and advice, which is the kind of carefully non-committal response that could mean anything from “we are about to act on all of this” to “we have filed it neatly.” The authors received no personal payment for the work.
Source: Jersey Evening Post
