PEH field application ‘met IDP requirements’

P&R has applied for permission for two four-storey blocks, with associated parking, to be built on the field. This would create 66 units of key worker accommodation.

Because the site is a green field, any development would be subject to a section S5 of the IDP which enable plans contrary to the IDP to be permitted on a site if it was considered to be of strategic importance.

But Yvonne Burford, one of the key opponents of the proposals, has asked P&R when it would be submitting a detailed and comprehensive site selection study, along with additional assessments which was expected as part of the submission for planning permission under this policy.

‘The committee notes that there is no requirement under IDP policy S5 to submit a site-selection study or technical assessments,’ replied P&R president Peter Ferbrache.

‘It believes that the application would not have been accepted by the DPA and published if it fell short of the IDP requirements.’

Should the DPA require more information it could write to P&R, but that had not happened so far.

The site has been targeted for key worker housing but Deputy Burford asked P&R what, if any discussions had taken place with the owner of St Martin’s Hotel with a view to the States buying it.

This was before news broke of a draft development framework suggesting that 100 homes could be built on that site.

P&R said that confidential discussions had been going on for several years but had not progressed quickly because the owner had also been in discussions about the development framework.

It also defended the fact that it had taken nine months for the planning application to be submitted, which was due to the requete being placed in an effort to block any development.

Submitting the application earlier would have drawn on ‘limited resources’ that were also being used in connection with other sites, such as the States’ requirements for Duchess of Kent House.

The States had also bought the for CI Tyres site in that time and was close to completing on another.

‘The Committee for Health & Social Care has also used this period to review and confirm the requirement for key worker accommodation on or very close to the PEH campus,’ said Deputy Ferbrache.

Deputy Burford suggested that the approach taken by P&R was ‘risk-laden’ since there had been so much public opposition, the application was reliant on a ‘narrow policy gateway’ and there was also potential for a judicial review to be called to challenge the move.

But Deputy Ferbrache said this question suggested that this field was the only option P&R had looked at and he refuted this.

P&R had also driven ‘an accelerated programme of brownfield and previously-developed site purchases to facilitate the affordable housing programme’.

It had expected opposition to the PEH field application but ‘on balance, and given the continued demand for the accommodation’ felt that it had no option.

. The public consultation on the plans closed in mid-January. However it may be a number of weeks before a decision is made and published.

The Planning Service aims to issue 80% of decisions within eight weeks, but it can take longer on more complex applications.