Monday 21 March and Tuesday 22 March 2016 saw a number of people at the Appeal against the proposed (and passed) construction of the imaginatively-named Building 5, one of the buildings planned for the hotly-debated Jersey International Finance Centre due to be developed on the Esplanade car park site. SOS Jersey had appealed, along with C Le Masurier Ltd, against Planning’s ‘OK’ for B5 to go ahead; Our Chairman, Michael du Pré, spoke for SOSJ.
Ably run by UK expert Philip Staddon, the appeal hearing brought out the timeline of events and a number of serious and worrying issues about procedure. The transcript of the two days is shown beneath the pictures, but you can also view ESPLANADE QUARTER – BUILDING 5 APPEAL 21-22 MARCH 2016 – Days 1 and 2 PDF here. SOSJ’s input is in a separate document here:Esplanade JIFC Building 5 Appeal – SOS Jersey’s arguments.
BUILDING 5 APPEAL 21-22 MARCH 2016
PS: Philip Staddon; SOS: SOS Jersey; BL: Ben Ludlum: LM: Le Masurier & lawyer; JDC: JDC & lawyer; DE: Dept of Env.
Please note, in intro, JDC & DE were lumped together ref responses…
Please note I am a poor and slow typist, and nor did I have the reference documents at hand. In reading this, you accept that while there are some actual verbatim quotes, the words contained herein are a gist of what was said.
For a full agenda, please refer to the attached draft – as there were no comments on this, the draft was used at the time. SOS’s comments (spoken at the hearing by Michael du Pré) are attached in a separate document. I may properly proofread and format this later, but time now is limited.
The Inspector will open the Hearing, welcome the parties and explain how the Hearing process will operate.
BL: Not about profit, about a bigger thing
LM: There has been a misstep in the applications.
LM: Credentials abroad and St Helier, owns land N of Espl, locally owned. Want to see beneficial regeneration – not purely commercial.
JN (John Nicholson): see what is in dept reports
RW (Richard Wilson): principle planner – have not misrepresented.
JDC: Mumble, mumble
SOS: our objections and others’ have not been addressed
PS: I need cooperation of all parties to stick to agenda. He was a planner in public sector, now independent practice, knows all the roles and has wide experience. He is independent and impartial. The report he submits will be published and not changed.
Jersey’s appeal system is new. There are no set procedures so don’t worry about lack of structure and complications. I have read a lot about this, and while looking at wider issues, my focus is on the planning application. What happened last week is nothing to do with today – someone else can sort that out.
Common ground: be useful if parties could agree to some, or agree to disagree. Statement of common ground is a mature discipline and can help process, so hope to see it in future in Jersey.
Late documents: this appeal has been protracted and I have expressed concern. If what’s in the files I had delivered yesterday is in the public realm, we will allow it; if it’s new, we won’t.
Have tried to have a logical flow to the agenda. [Goes through it and what he wants from it.]
In this session, the Inspector will explore the legal and planning policy framework relevant to the appeal. He will seek contributions from the parties to assist his understanding. However, this session is aimed at fact finding, and gaining a full understanding of the relevant policies. The actual debates about ‘weight’ and ‘consistency’ (with identified policies) will take place in later sessions.
PS: Lots of parallels with English system. Permission should be given if in accordance of IP… but answer not easily found in IP doc as it refers to other documents.
Various brief points made in relation to related Articles by LM and JDC.
PS: Refers to 2011 IP, Officer’s report, section 13 policies.
PS: Policy PE2 first. SP1 – How does this fit in with Plan, JDC – they say it fits.
SP2 – generic policy for all dev and requires make efficient use of land, energy resources, etc – sustainability.
SP3 – hierarchy of priorities’ specifically mentions esplanade quarter.
SP4 – protection of natural and historic environments and Island’s unique character.
SP9 – employment (?)
SP6 – cars and more environmentally friendly transport. (eg, cycle spaces, near bus station.)
SP7 – design
PS: At strategic level, proposal ticks quite a lot of the boxes. No disagreement there.
GD1 – development control catch-all. [Worth looking up.] Doesn’t cause harm and does good in various aspects.
GD4 – public amenity provision.
PS: I will ask later about scope of planning obligations.
GD5 – serious detrimental env impact will not be permitted.
LM: See p 39 – where a masterplan… evidence required…
PS: IP is well written but fair bit of repetition – asked for clarification on a bit of it, eg, relevant to more detail needed… and not clarified on supplementary planning guidance. à Applicant must show how they comply with MP.
GD 6 – contaminated land.
PS: We will look at issues raised ref contamination later.
GD 7 – design quality. JDC say it is similar to one of the SP policies.
NE1 – natural env p61 – keeping biodiversity.
HE1 – like SP4 preserving/enhancing character
BE1 – town centre vitality p131
PS: Concern about too much retail? We will come to that.
PS: Why wasn’t there more detail in the initial planning application? Where they referenced?
JDC: You are right., we reference points in the IP and in the preamble, p443.because MP recent, we used it like that.
General talk around MP amendment.
PS: Is there reference to design code in the MP – is it seen as a subset to the MP?
JDC: It goes beyond the Esplanade, but 6.3 alludes to it.
LM: Attention drawn to bringing the two bits of town together and incl need for financial quarter.
PS: Major engineering project – doesn’t seem to have specific policy in MP – I have to remind myself Jersey is Jersey – in England, major projects have a policy!
JDC: MP is complex and IP is directed to it. Sinking of road, we will look at later.
BE5 (or PE5?) – roofscapes.
BE10 – waterscapes.
LM: Issue with roofscape – there is a problem; there was a proposal to have roof gardens – and that disappeared. Return to this later.
PS: B10 does not require roof gardens.
BO1 (or PO1?) – 4 points listed – keep Jersey as an IFC – make opportunities in town centre. pp171, 173 (land use and distribution of offices in town).
TT4 – cycles, etc – no questions on this.
TT7, 8 and 10 – better public transport and access, and public parking – look at later.
Understanding the chronology, content and relevance of the Planning history relating to the Esplanade Quarter and its immediate locality. There is a complex Planning history associated with the Esplanade Quarter. In this session, the Inspector will review and explore the key applications and allow parties to explain their views on the relevance of each.
Three substantial schemes, eg, Les Jardins, so guidance sought à recommendations after review of all 3 à Minister needed design advice, an architect and masterplan to draw these 3 challenging developments. Chris Sheplin (sp?) who produced SPG, was asked to help. Process and Policy recommendations made à SPG.
WF Policy runs through SPG.
PS: What weight do you see that the WF policies have? Are they comparable with IP?
LM: p 10, para 3 from bottom – ‘But I think it is necessary… Webb need to be leading this dev rather than the States.’ Basically, is the States, the Minster/Planning or developers (Webb/JDC) in charge? How does Public fit in. Happens in all major developments. This is a broad rather than core argument – be careful how key relationships are organised.
JDC à this is why we set up JDC (?) to help clarify such things.
LM: p11 first para – want a constructive relationship between Webb, ministers and planning – reassure public financial issues etc are met. BUT today is that happening today? The whole doc needs to be read in its totality. P37 para 1.1 – supplementary planning guidance for WF. Para 1.2 – new framework à developers must justify proposals against framework. Address integration and quality of buildings. P38 – framework must be adaptable and flexible. 2.3 – community objectives – flexible and adaptable. Later on MP is ongoing and need to keep checking original assumptions are true. These are clearly intended to be Policies. More of the same followed. Must have vibrancy and vitality land use and life at street level.
PS: Does this mean this SPG should be for every building? LM: Yes to all developments, not necessarily every building.
JDC: this covers a number of developments, so applies to some more than others.
LM: p46 – There is little doubt… interest, life and vitality on the WF mentioned again, so obviously a key objective. WF3 – shops, etc, must be appropriate to scale of area. P47, para 3.10 – imp, however, office uses are integrated with other uses so not sterile. (à vitality and balance). We ned offices, yes, but within them there must be means of introducing other uses to get variety and vitality. P48 – top para, same broad points – looking for clearly defined routes for pedestrians, etc. commercial success can be enhanced with mix use.
SPG – 2006, Hopkins a bit later.
Why is there a MP for the esplanade and not the wider areas in the SPG?
DE: It’s about understanding how we left SPG and got to MP. SPG appointed an architect supremo à apt Hopkins architects to do it. They met with all three developers by selves and together to listen and give advice à H went to Minister and said had idea of how to coordinate the Les Jardins and the Esplanade Quarter (Castle Quay was already far on) à MP developed.
PS: Do you see those offices, etc, equiv to IP policy plans?
PS: SPG is neater and tighter and I can see policies. MP is a bit different – I need to understand its policy implications.
LM: There is reference back to principal objectives in MP – but there is more in MP than we see on p4 – and it’s not clear what MPs there are – there are some key passages we would like you to know.
PS: Please talk me through principal objectives [8 bullets].
DE: I will set scene. It is quite complex and detailed as a result of much consultation (over 2 weeks, 260 people inputting) à fine tuning. Simple principles driving changes. Winter garden new concept after the consultation – to offer amenity. Original plans sat buildings on sea wall, but moved when protest. Retail has been halved in an area for residential accommodation, partly because town retailers concerned about loss of money. Max building heights on WF established: this was emotive! A height limit was seen as v important.
DE: Hopkins needed to dress around and within the development on Esplanade. During consultation, at least 50% of comments were around transport concerns à more detail added. SOSJ has a copy.
LM: Handed out a doc for others to see – supplementary planning guidance. It says some may be outdated and thus not applicable. P4 mentions EQ and MP amendment, SPG and design codes. Also mentions north of town MP.
LM: Refers to Programme of Work (handed out). Reviews and adoption. SOCSJ has a copy. Best practice.
LM: Alterations to MP as a result of public comment. It is thorough and long. Ref to sinking of road… important issue. Hopkins eventually became agent for Webb and JDC… acting for those two parties and the Minister – hence similarity of drawings. Design codes reacting with MP à quality mentioned. P13 Diag of MP area and main square key component in activities and winter garden. Etc. Pics help public understand the schemes as a whole. Only one place in plan shows heights and uses – building E shown as residential! Buildings A and B also residential(?).
LM: p 22 – Road system shown in detail as v complex and need to get the infrastructure right. P24 intended layout. See colonades around each building – shelter for pedestrians. Hopkins working on this for MP and developers. P34 MP introduces financial and wider aspects of proposals – ££ benefits and flow of investment into town, and benefits for infrastructure – it is unusual for MOOs to comment on financial benefits. p52 refs to ownerships around the area, mainly around the edge of the Esplanade. That is, JDC owns up to edge of dev site, but not between plot and highway… so do they have full control over the land they are trying to develop?
LM: p60 – intro concept of sequencing of MP. Sink road à dev site. ie, sinking is integral – not a part of phasing, as suggested later. P61 – having created the site, how shall we then dev?
PS: These pages are appendices? LM: Yes – and why? Perhaps to bring back in the things that weren’t questioned and amended.
LM: p46 – snapshot of the sequencing of the road construction – 2 diags. At the same time, the full 9 phases had been worked out and this is just an extract from that.
PS: ref p4 – it is unusual to have financial content in a MP – I need to understand this because I’m assuming a single develop entity at the time – says sinking road must be by dev at no cost. Is this public interest?
DE: the sig amount of public engagement prompted more detail than would have been in it. Also, the Minister wanted this endorsed by States and knew there would be a lot of scrutiny, so all of that anticipated/included even though it wouldn’t usually be.
JDC: Brought in Harcourt for delivery of whole site – ie, dev must do road too.
LM: road sinking sig cost, so dev needs to recoup cost. Height should be kept as low as poss … but because of road costs, allow some leeway?
BL: The public consultation process à concern about sinking/not sinking road, WGs, etc à all put into one plan by Cohen. à No risk to States or public with this Plan. The dev would have to deal with contamination costs and there was doubt about tenancies. Also needed town not to become ghost town, so money needed to go back into it à MP.
PS: May be a Jersey quirk but we have an unusual blend of planning and politics – separated much more in England. Did MP get updated when Harcourt left?
DE: Yes, unusual relationship – high political involvement in all sorts. We didn’t update MP when Harcourt left, leaving just one, as we didn’t know we needed to.
PS: The financials in the Plan – this is 7-8 years old, a different economic era – do we have anything more relevant and up to date?
DE: We decided to conclude all that £ info (see above) but idk if new £.
JDC (?): Different relationship now.
LM: Original model was falling away and new one came about – this is when MP review would have been appropriate but it hasn’t been done, despite opportunities since…. So MP still has full weight – The public therefore expect the Development to follow the MP, but they are seeing something different, however.
BL: Simon Crowcroft talked about ringfenced funding for St H regeneration – £50-70m… States Members are clearly still expecting this.
JDC: If there were a promise (I don’t think there was) in 2008, we had a proposition to rescind it… lost the process here! But to say approval not given. The Crowcroft bit to stop any dev was rejected by States. Various others. Last was Tadier – wanted to wait until scrutiny reported back, but turned down.
LM: This is about an appeal, and related to documents with full weight. The regeneration is unambiguously in the MP. The MPs belong to Dept of Env, not Ministers. Does it still work? If not, it needs to be reviewed. It hasn’t and still carries full weight.
DE: MP has full weight as part of IP, and it is unusually detailed – so confusion about absolute commitments.
LM: This MP written for this purpose. When Harcourt put it into plans, there was the ability to change MP by Ministerial remit.
PS: The MP is unusual, if not unique. Back to main body of MP – p19, schedule of floor spaces. Retail: 1m sq ft new floor space – in MP, >60% is proposed as offices – would vibrancy be left to other use rentees?
LM: Offices can have vibrant bits at ground level. PS: Where does it say that? BL: p47, section 3.10. Vitality must be part…. PS: It doesn’t say office space has to have active ground floor space. LM: Not saying all must, design shows where retail, cafes, etc, should be positioned, so I see it as some offices must have ground floor other use.
PS: Building E p20 – residential, but in design code changed to office below, maybe residential above. How did we get to that? LM: We don’t know; the others here might!
DE: Application by Harcourt to change this, we think – will check. à ID at design stage as commercial and residential shifter further west.
LM: Appears there were further adjustments to MP in 2008 (shows a doc); poss because an office was split into office and flats, so same content but redistributed.
PS: From a planning perspective, what should I read into design code that says ‘this is a residential block?’
DE: If there is an issue of moving use within a site, eg, moving away from busy junction, it may have been to make residential amenities better.
LM: This is peculation, not fact. The MP refers to Design Code (DC) – we need to refer back to that – DC is not meant to deal with redistribution. DC was dated 2008 but was not passed until 2010!
DE: The DCs were not intended to move things or redesign MP, but to help design process of detailed work. Minister put in flexibility.
BL: p35 MP – last para: integral to the EQ are a hotel, residentials, restaurants, shops, etc… B1, 4, 5 are office – single use, sterile for 10 years yet. So where are the apartments, etc, which are part of the prosed regeneration?
PS: want to review transport content. P 22. Very detailed on traffic layout. In my reading of it, if you didn’t level (lay/sink?) the road, you would need a new MP. Is this correct? It also struck me about the boulevard (Sn boundary of B5 plot), one of the question marks about the design/layout is how would B5 fit with the street pattern in the MP – which is different. When planning considered application were they mindful of street pattern?
JDC: This building forms an important corner – style fits in with existing and proposed context.
PS: Ref proposed network of streets, is there flexibility?
DE: We have future proofing in the design; eg, below ground work for 4-5 changed.
PS: Ref proposed network of streets, is there flexibility? [Again]
DE: Much of MP is about flexibility – we would be flexible in broad terms but would require justification for more.
PS: p46 that we looked at earlier. What’s happened to this 2-phased approach? Is it still valid or has it been overtaken by events.
LM: Full report on that. Separate report – expanded view of the simplified 2-phase approach – blow by blow of how road should be put in place. It might help if you (PS) saw it. It shows how commercial lots could be built as an integral/concomitant thing.
DS: I have an overarching Q on the MP. Architects and design can get carried away – in 2008, how much was this scheme viability tested? There must be something on this, to give the confidence in this ambitious project being viable.
DE: Not necessarily a job for planning minister, but certainly a concern. Viability – wanted to avoid doing as a whole in case it didn’t happen. In general terms, viability not our concern. Webb might know more. Indications from the developer was that it was possible. The condition obliged the developer to give assurances that financial arrangements were in place, esp the first bit – eg, if hole dug and then something goes wrong, leaving traffic arrangements in air. In this instance, therefore, we looked for assurances – a bond. Advice taken from Treasury as to if realistic, etc. This discussion was ongoing.
BL: Yes, there was a bond of £95 for Harcourt, and H struggled to raise it and by 2009 were no longer the preferred developer. Concerns over H not raising enough money à report commissioned à showed £50m loss because of 4 year underground road project first before above ground work would bring in £.
DE: This was a Treasury report and not in the Public Domain.
BL: It was still a States report so should have been taken into consideration.
DE: Planning Minister didn’t have it and had to focus on the building bits he could work within.
PS: My thought processes is planning permission runs with the land, so how would this work if the applicant hadn’t been run by States?
LM: BL said at time that it wasn’t financially viable. If it was granted, they must have been convinced it was viable.
JDC: I see it as permissions given on condition assurances met. H would not have applied without OK of Treasury who could have insisted on bonds, etc. à agreement with bank bond underwriting project. But didn’t get to that point as relationship with H terminated.
PS: [Shows sheets of paper] Are there more details than that? What exactly are the amendments? What consultations were carried out? Where did the amendment come from?
DE: Amendment requested by Webb – phasing be re-examined because market was changing. (post-Harcourt). Wanting carpark for office use.
LM: Objection – does not say amendment needed.
PS: I have a series of similar questions. It is an enigma – where did it come from and what does it mean? Explain.
DE: The papers suggest sinking of road isn’t first. Amendment: they were asking Minister to make amendment in Sept 2010 – signed off March 2011. He asked the then TTS for advice. They considered scheme could run ahead. Minister also asked advice on Waterfront Design Group (WDG); they reviewed layout and fly-through from the architects. They were content. Minister agreed amendment as an addendum to the original MP. The changes were: means of access to the site and parking. There was not new means of access shown (!). also allowed degree of flexibility over office space – demands were reflected in the amendment and scale of scheme. The flythrough doc showed scale and mass to give 3D form. Not in public domain (!).
PS: I can see some changes, eg, orientation of square (etc). Beyond that, I can’t see any explanation for the ease of access and emerging changes of scale.
DE: The principle change was more for B3, not B5.
PS: Why not more detail in amendment, given original MP is so detailed? I’m still not clear what the amendment does and does not do.
DE: Benefit of hindsight, we should have done it – but the consultation was done.
PS: Sinking of the road and the H scheme… was it going to be relatively early on? [Yes.] amendment says sinking will be later – ‘later’ = ?
DE: = Might have been done at same time as some building. [Vague!]
PS: This amendment does not define what Phase 1 (or others) are.
DE: No – only says road does not have to be first. [Embarrassed pulling at collar stage now!]
PS: Then what IS this later phase and if it is so fundamental to the MP when is it going to be – what is the trigger point?
JDC: It became part of the conditions of building. (Condition 34.) This will help your interpretation.
LM: Here is the Customer Charter. [Hands out copies.] Please note: Our Values – customers (in this case, the public of Jersey) at heart of everything we do; we are transparent, clear and consistent. (Check quote.) Refers to no building until prelets in place. Work by Webb shows emerging demand for commercial office space – but no details given to public. Then amendments needed to emerging demands – no ref to phasing. It says ‘eastern section’ but does not say of whole of eat or the two eastern-most buildings. The core principles of the MP should not be compromised – doesn’t say which principles they are. Changes to heights, etc by H not shown to public. ‘That work’ has been completed (not definition)… etc. No substantive consultation on these points, and no records. Errors in way Amendment handled. Does not say when road will be sunk.
LM: I have done an overlay of current, amended MP to original. [Hands out.] It is clear (see top of plan) the top coincides, but lower down in the middle, the new one is distorted vertically and does not show true scale. The drawing does not appear to be to scale even tho one is marked on it. We don’t know what eastern section is that was referred to. We don’t know what orange and pink colouring means and there is no annotation. The whole Plan has changed. We don’t know how far the amendment has gone. Adding all these points together, our view is…
- There is no justification for changes]
- Not detailed, not annotated; Kiosk, etc, gone; 3d changes – not showing
- Insufficient consultation with professionals and public
DE: plan skew-wiff/squished (so looks smaller N-S, OK E-W) because of repeated photocopying. The road will go ahead. Phasing is mentioned. MP was made after significant public consultation. Minister saw this as sufficient to set up the phasing and issues like transportation.
LM: Rebuttal – cannot see the word phasing. [Last line of paper.] I can’t see line between phase one and road sinking. ‘Enigma’ is an understatement.
BL: What is the orange building centre right of square. DE: I think a kiosk.
LM: I have made a new overlay so it’s to scale (done in Photoshop) to give true picture of changes. Only one copy –? PS. You can see the volumes and footprints have increased significantly – not clear on public plan on dept’s website.
DE: These details available with correct vertical scale. It is a presentational matter, is all.
LM: But this is the only means by which public at large can have a view. It’s inaccurate and not very informative.
PS: Does amendment say 6 buildings can go ahead before road? [Yes.] What about afterwards, the orange bit? [DK.]
PS: Well, OK, that was interesting.
PS: MP signed off before work began? [Yes.]
PS: Look at p4. ‘Hopkins Master Plan’… but this is different to one of the same name in the MP doc! Why?
DE: Poss not looking at same thing/part of plan? (A bit vague here.)
LM: See p95 – shows key pedestrian routes.
DE: Talks about evolution of layout. ?? waffle.
PS: Is this when H were wearing a number of hats? [yes.] So… MP commissioned by the Minister. [yes] and Design Code (DC) by Webb. [Yes.]
DE: DC featured in a light way in the MP and then was done in much more detail later.
LM: p6 says what DC is for and what it is designed to do.
PS: Where does change happen? [See pp19 and 21]. Was there any public consultation with respect to DC?
De: No. (plus waffle on extension of principals outlined in MP. Plus aired in a parallel consultation.)
PS: Was it an application document? [dk]
LM: p5 MP explains what DC are intended to do – talks of manual to help – those aims are expanded in the design code (check what he was talking about.) the DC was written for a client. We spoke of some retail and cafes, etc, mixed use – see p20 of DC which shows this and the pedestrian route. The mixed use was meant to follow main pedestrian routes.
PS: This is post-reduction in retail space? [Yes]
LM: p78 This reflects approach to design of the scheme – integrated. BL: the 8.1m grid is part of that design – 1420 car parking spaces – that was a dual level under entire Esplanade, available to the public. [JDC: only 520 set out in MP – tenants resisted private parking under buildings – so see p68.] Ben – p68 shows additional parking for residents, boutique hotel, etc. Drawings at back of DC – H’s – small scale, but do show, eg, residential parking forming part of upper levels, etc. These aren’t numbered.
Discussion follows on which buildings were/are residential.
Please explain how this land was formed.
DE: It was started in the 1800s. it is well described in the St Helier Character Appraisal, chapt 1.
DE: Post-1970 is where I will start: [Sheets given out.] La Collette infill began in 1970. Let’s look at the WF – the main thrust of the reclamation: more land; repostitory for inner waste from demol sites; new port facilities – commercial and leisure. West of Albert 1 was the first bit 1981-3. W of A2 includes Radisson, Jardin. West of Albert marina 95-98. Underpass and routes to ferry port 1991-3. Elizabeth harbour 87-9 0 RORO ferries. 91-3 North Marina Wall – opp Liberty Wharf.
BL: More detail on p48, incl Bellozanne, etc. Says Espalande dev will be at expense of developer.
I missed a little here when went out to make call; I also missed a few bints in that I didn’t follow everything being said.
In the OPP, and after one week’s Public Enquiry, the Inspector concluded the area needed mixed development. à Planning Obligation Agreement. This POA is in the Public Registry and is accessible for anyone to download.
Why is the POA important? It’s a product and agreement.
It was not enacted, however – was this because the Planning permission had lapsed. à schedule 2, leaseholders’ covenants. In this case the leaseholder is Webb. 1.2 and 1.3 recommendations of report.
BL: The Ministerial decision determination was approved for above ground works (App 1681), but NOT for the below ground works. Why not? Because there are wide implications if the below ground works were left uncompleted. The application for below ground works suspended for now. In fact, application run out, so dead. The phasing is not specified, but the intention was for future flexibility.
BL looks at document explaining infrastructure, etc, and how the above ground would be integrated. He explains ref the sinking of the road (Rte de La Liberation), it has been done volte face, so can it now be done? [No.]
JDC: Yes, it can be done – see Phase 5.
BL: All parking for that will be by the ferry harbour and will need a network of new roads.
[Argument on traffic flow follows.]
PS: Harcourt has gone à was there a desire/effort to get a replacement single developer?
JDC: Probably they couldn’t find one because of the global economic downturn. [Didn’t actually say yes or no.]
PS: The nearby J1 Planning Permission – what is it?
LM: 280k sq ft, 2 phase, walkway between Broad St and Commercial St and offices, with ground floor use by LM.
PS: Is this relevant to my considerations?
DE: [I think they said no in a convoluted way.]
JDC: Every time we ask for planning, LM and others object. ‘Ongoing saga’, ‘stopping us doing it properly. [Moan, moan for a few paragraphs.]
LM: J1 – weakness of other market and other developments – unlikely we will go ahead. We could d o it in E and W phases, but not yet as it would not be financially prudent.
B4 history of permission
1st Aug 2013 granted permission; 41 car parking (cp) spaces.
PS: Anything you want to say?
LM: Yes, it was a very important application. We don’t accept the 2011 amendemnt aimed at creating a new first phase made up entirely of offices – the Department and Applicants think so, but it is not on the MP!
LM: Only they saw the correspondence between Webb and the Minister, so no one else knows the aim of the amendment. The 2011 amendment made a commitment to have further in-depth consultation, but that hasn’t happened.
LM: Thiss is the first application for a standalone, and it’s not seen in context. There must be an Outline Consent first, especially as integration is a key theme of this development. Mis-step at the outset.
DE: It was not an attempt to avoid consultation – the Minister thought it was OK.
LM: How can you engage with the Public at large if only bits are done and they can’t see how the scheme will evolve and if wider issue comments are dismissed?
JDC: Statutory process for public comment para 12 – majority of objections do come from LM, so the representations were made and the planning got passed.
LM: Now [with the new regs] it would have to be put out to public consultation. Furthermore, the public don’t have the technical knowhow to access and comment on those documents you have – which also happen to be in the offices at Snow Hill! [access issues]. That £50m promised that the public saw, won’t happen now.
JDC: The £50m is a red herring. [!]
?: Obscure revisions to the MP set a pattern for non-integrated buildings. Appeal for B4 was then only through the Royal Courts. [Public could not afford this.]
SOS: We talked with JDC about containment of landfill after excavation. Alan McClean said to the States there was n0o contamination. [Of course, it was up to 20% as SOSJ had said.]
SOS: With B5, these matters were not covered properly. We are considering raising funds to get plastic sheeting in areas where public passes by for their protection.
PS: Acknowledged, and we will do more on that later.
PS: Ref B4, 5 and 1 – B1 is not being progressed – why is that?
JDC: We were in dialogue with prospective tenants (for 150k sq ft), but they chose an alternative plot [do they mean plot or another provider?] so we reverted to the more logical 4 and 5 (going on a ‘develop from E to W’ basis.)
PS: What about the underground public car park?
JDC: The plans were for 3 ½ levels with 520 spaces, but the tenant didn’t want public parking beneath them so a separate public car park was planned – it has permission. The intention has been to do B1 at the same time in order to minimise disruption.
BL: The tenants didn’t want to be next to a development with all the shaking and contamination, so that’s why they are going elsewhere.
JDC: 8 buildings identified before below ground to commence.
DS: Will the permission be implemented?
JDC: At some point, in advance of B1.
PS: Ref B5 resubmission on Thursday – was that contrived in an effort to avoid today’s proceedings?
?: Has no impact on phased appeal, but not a matter today.
PS: I am not bound by Planning. If I have a different view, then someone else can sort that one out.
DE: It was consistent with the applications for B1, B4 and the cp.
End of Day 1.
Cont of yesterday’s
LM: See para 2.10 ref B4 – we believe this set the framework for successive permissions – almost as if it were an umbrella, so in B5 they refer back to B4 process.
PS: Like a paradigm shift? [Yes]
DE: I agree. B4 changed the approach – but just the delivery, not the concepts and visions. There are still requirements, etc.
PS: Relates back to issues of bonding, expected profits, etc. So where’s all that in this new approach?
DE: Goes back to agreements with Webb and Harcourt.
PS: Given all of that, why wasn’t the MP revised to reflect these new circumstances.
DE: 2008 objectives still stood.
PS: MP does meld planning and delivery – relatively unusual for a MP to do that.
DE: We looked at new way of delivery with an open mind. The engineering logistics did not nec take on board how to do commercial delivery. The scheme has failed to come forward because of ££, so went for a new step by step demand led approach came about,
LM: Nothing about a demand-led approach in the MP. Shefly drew attention to it in 2008 with concern, so then whole approach developed – and now we have a new approach, not in the MP amendment, even if they had intended it to be. Now we have individual applications. Of concern also is under each application are suites of docs which deal with 6 buildings. B4 app – but alongside it an overall plan… this is not proper palnning, all under the umbrella of one application… yet that has set the framework for all future decisions – and there was not public consultation for this so no-one could make representations on the broader issues. Also phasing drawings submitted only detail 6 buildings – the plan excludes all else and it does show the road in place, but the rest is left out.
JDC & PS: Clarified above, sort of. What doe sthe Mp prescribe a planning framework, a vision? Is it so prescriptive we can’t make any changes – height, switching residential area, etc… and is it prescriptive re mode of delivery and returns made from project. It seems strange to me if it were so prescriptive. Does it all have to fall to one developer to do the lot?
LM: I don’t disagree, but if there changes to be made, we need to consider overtly the issues and change the MP.
JDC: What is the tipping point where we need to rewrite the MP? Are we there or are we in essence doing what it asks.
LM: Planning law says if MP is stuck to, we grant the permission – but not when there is a deviation. This planning appl was put forward saying it did comply. We don’t need a whole new expensive enquiry, but do need honesty.
DE: The previous applications weren’t deviations.
LM: Doing the road later is a huge deviation from the MP.
JDC: MP shows 8 buildings completed before road.
LM: No coherent explanation for the changes; and not showing how scheme complies with MP. We see scetches but they refer to a previous scheme. The DE has not asked them to show how they want to do it and JDC hasn’t shown it.
JDC: The tunnel and road will be delivered, it’s not a problem.
LM: We are not dealing here with an appl for 6 buildings, but a whole vision for the Island. No proof of their assertions that there will be no demonstrable harm to MP if just 6 buildings done.
JDC: Nothing in MP to say there is a timeframe on the 6 buildings.
LM: No ref to demand-led in MP.
DE: This is an appl for one building only.
LM: Officers’ report for B4. [See photocopy of relevant sheets.] Key points for an appl summarised here. This is the first building in the first phase – implication is it will be completed. Reps by any commercial interest has no voice as a result.
JDC: 11 objections, 10 of which were from competing nearby developers.
DE: It is not the role of the dept to promote one project over and other, just to conc on planning conditions.
LM: The objections have been responded to and then left, but not analysed objections… not therefore signif issues for the Planning Officer.
LM; Change in market demand means changes in planning – I agree, but it must be done properly and transparently, not behind closed doors. Also the MP has been reduced to p1 of the doc we are looking at. The MP must be read as a whole, and the supplementary planning guide must not be ignored either.
LM: 3D model comment dropped as page missing from copies.
LM: ‘It is significant there has been no public objection’ does not mean it should be approved! There is no justification for making the amendment to sequencing ref road – not shown why it was necessary.
PS: Clarity is missing on when what is done.
DE: Yes, but original MP didn’t either, so planning Minister couldn’;t tie developers to a time scale.
LM: Can anyone afford to build the road (rather than can it be built)?
LM: With the application there were phasing drawings [hands out copies] from the 2003 report which came with B4 application. When the dept approved this, were they approving a notional sequencing or the layout? The confu=iugration hasn’t changed, even if the sequencing has.
PS: Will do more on that this pm
LM: Overlay shows different configuration in the layout – not fundamental changes to the concept, but there are to the detail. B3, 4, 5(?) and 6 more or less unchanged, but a couple have changed size and position so as to avoid existing dual carriageway. Also change to central sunken Square (with cafes, etc) to make open park with 3 storey cp under – this prevents sunken square being built. This is a fundamental change to MP as there should be mixed use.
LM: These changes are not nec bad things, but how do public know about this and how do they engage? They are not getting what expected à should be a process to make changes like this more open to debate.
PS: What are your comments on this, DE?
DE: The objectives of the MP haven’t been diluted or dissolved in essence, so don’t want to belittle the space which will now be created which will be of great amenity value. The Minister OK’d all of this in the knowledge of these changes.
LM: Reiterates lack of public engagement. Also this MP was vision-led, not demand-led. Now it’s office-led.
JDC: We had to have some tenants before building, so it was demand-led. 200k sq ft ‘derisking’.
DE: Unless there is some benefactor, it requires huge amounts fo £££, so it has to be commercial y viable, so must be demand-led.
LM: Other means of funding, not just offices. Other funding sources have not been explored – we went straight from Harcourt to States-led. The elephant in the room is everyone knows road sinking is not viable, so approach needed to be changed… we have changes but there are no figures. They were away with the fairies when H said could be done and would get a profit and it was put to the States.
PS: Stage 34 – figures are there but are redacted from the public copies. There is a gap between cost of road and receipts even in a fair wind.
LM: pp16-17 officers report and other sections – supplementary planning guidance was a key factor and would be dealt with alter… but it wasn’t! So we don’t know if proposal for B4 etc did meet those criteria. We have done our own assessment [no time to do now, but have copies for you] and it shows some key aspects do not comply.
PS: Compliance dealt with later.
JDC: Outline of when they want to do next buildings, 3 and 6 – ‘if we were lucky enough to get tenants’. This is the eastern block – 5 year target. Next phase is cp and then B2 and 1. Pre-recession peak has now been exceeded in preletting and construction. We are trying to provide nec infrastructure for Island – 64% of Island’s GDP.
The ‘Jersey International Finance Centre’ (JIFC) and the role and remit of the States of Jersey Development Company (JDC).
There is considerable reference in the parties’ submissions to the JIFC and the JDC. In this session, the Inspector will explore, in so far as it is relevant to his Planning considerations, the following: JDC’s role and remit and The JIFC project.
JDC: FC wholly owned by SoJDC. New memorandum and articles of association. Webb was involved in dev of WF and MP. Then States thought those roles should separate. Refers to Tab 7 in MP ref a new proposition: lodge it with Greffe à consideration period à States debate it.
JDC: 7 June 2010, the CoM lodged proposition to approve various incl structuring planning and implementation for regenartion, esp St Helier. Here they mention Webb’s dual role and thus conflicts – MP to Minister, and regeneration steering group (RSG) for guidance.
JDC: [This part went on for ages. Just a summary here.] RSG should transfer MP into working development plan but SoJDC do rest. [Etc, etc, etc…. all to do with regeneration plans and who does what, including Scrutiny (in UK called opposition).] RSG made up of senior elected members, but not Planning. This bit went on for ages, quoting from a doc… by and large who does what and how we got there including setting up SoJDC and who directs it. Check with Le Mas if any queries. Any borrowing must have the prior written Ok from the Treasury minister and must show no risk.
PS: In the old days Webb was the leader. In the new set up, whose voice would say this is getting messy, let’s look at the MP again?
JDC: A States member needs to bring a proposition.
LM: I disagree, it’s planning and Planning Minister for ensuring new amendments are written up, etc.
JDC: Yes, but the States oversee the whole lot and can direct things to happen, eg, via the Planning Minister.
LM: PM can change MP without States OK.
JDC: Yes, but it wouldn’t then be an amendment approved by SoJ.
LM: No – did not do that for 2011 amendment (did for 2008 MP).
PS: You have been going for 4-5 yrs – what have you achieved.
JDC: Bought Esplanade site and secured permissions for B1, 4 and 5 and temp cp. B4 complete Feb 2017. Also have the JCG development project. (127 residential unit, >60% presold, commencing building this summer, finish 2018.)
PS: Tell me about the Esplande Quarter (EQ) – B4 – how will that make £
JDC: We have borrowed to build à £ will service debt. Treasury shareholder will decide what to do with assets.
PS: RSG gave string remit to implement JIFC, have you been instructed ref road area?
JDC: 10 year project with road sinking in second phase – no details yet as it’s 10 years away. Conc on Phase 1. Buildings à cp à more buildings à valuation à road. Think £95m net receipt from Phase 1, which will be used to do the road.
PS: Is road planning or political?
JDC: MP requires road lowering – we need £ and political ability. The £ will be used for this and not other projects unless told otherwise.
LM: RSG have told JDC to dev JIFC … but there is no planning or relevance to JIFC. TTS Minister who is on the RSG has said the road won’t be sunk. There is no clear direction. There is a general perception it won’t be sunk, so why isn’t planning minister intervening to regain control.
JDC: No evidence to what LM said! Where is the written evidence?
BL: I will swear and affidavit.
JDC: Affadavit no use.
DE: It is broadly there in writing. [Looks for source – finds it – and more argument over definition over underground roundabout and tunnel. Semantics.]
JDC: The PM is in control – not just the TTs member.
LM: In core bundle of docs p 105 – Ozouf (then T Min) saying we all know project is not viable – we will tell people we will fake the project. (Check.) We will never bury the road.
JDC: Statements from Hansard mean nothing in terms of your review.
PS: Why is JIFC so controversial? Tell me about JIFC.
JDC: You have heard about the 6 office buildings and that we have 13k working in £ ind and there will be more, and £ is 50% of Iland’s GDP, so we must support it. We have good utilities and telecoms… but need Grade A office space, so first 6 buildings will meet that need. So far not been delivered as no blank canvas sites (except EQ). Many buildings ot N or site only get light from small elevvations and atria because they are like terraces, so EQ buildings therefore built separately so can still leave light – and give flexibility for end users.
JDC: We are afraid won’t get new business if buildings aren’t there. Local business may also expand elsewhere. We are in talks with prospects for up to 325k sq ft over next 5 years. This exceeds pre-recession peak. The branding came about because of the finance industry not having an identifiable district. The JIFC is a natural progression to what is our central business district CBD. Flagship, etc.
PS: There is a view I have heard that all this will do is play musical chairs with existing tenancies in St H.
JDC: Biz vacate because buildings no longer viable so want to find other, better offices à may leave Island if they can’t get what they want. Also, they may leave because they are consolidating into one building. Vacated buildings – some are OK when refurbed for lower level spec offices or made into residential places – and that is part of the strategic plan which looks to allow more people to be able to live in St H.
PS: Assumptions in B4 re occupancies?
JDC: 15-20% inbound biz, and the rest for local biz to move into. We have very little Grade A Bream offices (only 2) in Jersey, though more under construction. We don’t have enough.
PS: What is your company view on the controversy surrounding JIFC? I see on Google about protests, etc.
JDC: We can go back to the reclamation of the site in the 1970s. All Esplanade projects since have had their controversies. We have contrary views on the JIFC, with various sectors objecting, including from competitors including Le Mas and Dandara. We have the environmental concerns – in the 1980s we didn’t have the controls we have today, so it is contaminated with ash mainly and asbestos. I don’t get why they are OK with using site for other uses. (Do we?!). Also big argument about if there is a demand so there is a concern by public there will be a white elephant. Others just enjoyed the surface cp – easy to park and convenient.
SOS: It is a complex issue but in brief, our interest is if we are going to do it, do it properly in all its parts and the planning and consultation should be consistent and proper – the public consultation has been missing, yet the whole project has changed. Wring way to proceed for such a major project. Not against IFC per se if done properly and £ and economic justification were good. We also represent the public who are confused about what is going on.
LM: This is not about competition – there are 3 buildings with good Bream ratings, The RB Canada went elsewhere – this is just a game of musical chairs – 470k sq ft available; if people leave old offices, not all can be made into residences. Only 16.5 sq ft prelet… and more private stuff coming onstream. It will have to stop after 1-2 buildings and then stall for a few years – this is not the MP. We need a timetable and stiff penalties for non-compliance. We need a timetable with the Minister taking control and reviewing if needs be. We need something appropriate in size and with mixed use – all we have planned are soulless offices with no different ground use.
PS: Ref the special status of the applicant – would planning have been different and simpler if within Harcourt Scheme. B5, if the applicant was Joe Bloggs developer Ltd and had no control over beyond red line, how would you have dealt with it?
DE: It would have been done the same. Not sure the H scenario would have been simpler. H was planning a hotel, but I don’t know who it was for? It would have been demand led as hoteliers want a say in it.
LM: We have an H appl that was approved to build infrastructure. The PM secured full control over the delivery. DE: It was an agreement to agree.
JDC: H did not have control over the land. If there were a 3rd party developer it would be with agreement of JDC which is responsible for the outcome.
LM: JDC are just focusing on 6 buildings, but not whole MP and timings.
JDC: Without £ we can’t do road, etc, so we have the need to phase to get £.
LM: So who has the overall responsibility for the MP? The Planning Minister is being quiet.
The Inspector will visit the site and surrounding area with representatives of the Principal parties and interested parties (maximum of two representatives per party).
John Nicholson took interested parties around the boundaries of the proposed site, and also pointed out the uses of the surrounding buildings. We also looked down at the B4 development.
Building on the exploration undertaken in the earlier sessions, the Inspector will chair a round table discussion focused on the main issues and questions. These matters have been drawn from the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the other Principal parties and the interested parties. There is inevitably some overlap between certain issues but each will be discussed in turn.
Doc of words rather than lots of pics, by Chris Sheply.
LM: Officer’s report for B5 – can’t see B5 in total isolation as taking bits of B4’s permissions. [Gives out doc.] Were concerned with wider issues of MP rather than immediate env. Replies to concerns not dealt with in detail because they have been dealt with in B1 and 4 and were referred back to. LM: The dept say MP not a strait jacket – you (PS) need to reflect on that concept… respond to demand to create… but that is not how MP set off. The objectives of the MP are just a part of a larger vision – it attempted to get this across to the public (aided by diags).
LM: ref SPG, despite officer saying it would be considered, it does not appear in the report.
DE: Ref all submissions we make, there is a one-way stream from the appellant.
LM: I could have raised all these points in detail – just wanted to give a synopsis.
PS stops to read the points.
PS: The difficulty this places me in is your critique is in more detail than in your submissions: please do not stray too far from what has been submitted.
LM: There is no evidence that the planning officers addressed the SPG, and the detail is just to help you see that.
PS: Let’s look at the WF first then – policy 1 in SPG. Each building in a common framework in context with surrounding buildings.
LM: There is no coordinated framework one can rely on. Where is the assessment against the wider coordinated approach.
ED: The scheme does show this and is robust.
LM: The Guidance – narrative is redacted [PS: It is about supporting mixed growth by Minister.] B5, like B4 and 1 from which template we are doing B5 are meant to have cafes and retail (and activity and vitality, etc), but don’t.
DE: It will have trees etc, and activity and vitality.
JDC: In Phase 1 and Phase 2 you can identify food and beverage activity on ground floor of 3 (NW corner of new square) and 2 (NE corner of new public park) as they will get most sunlight, near the park/open area.
LM: The applicants are relying on detail in buildings that haven’t had planning permission. The applicant must demo compliance with SPG and MP, but no reference to these policies in the phasing document.
PS: WF 3 wasn’t raised in your submissions – is it ditto?
LM: In para 6, you will see a similar point. Referred to in p9 of doc – just doesn’t have a subhead. It says should not be a commercial showpiece – but the IFC clearly is.
LM: Integration with other activities to avoid sterility. From our site visit, you see we are bereft of café and other uses as offices are the norm there. There are some other uses, but large block of not.
PS: There is clearly set out the need for mixed use at street level
[Some talk around this, and referencing documents.]
LM: The B5 building is not taken in context of surroundings (nor are 1 and 4) as shown in the MP – we need some way of providing vitality at street level.
DE: Our policies do reflect the Island Plan and the assessment does deal with these issues.
LM: Obligation on applicant to demo compliance – it’s not clear and we have to search for it – not clear how these policies are being dealt with. If these policies are attached to other buildings, those buildings have not yet been passed.
JDC: The MP is clear on how many cafes, etc, scheme can support without impacting on businesses in St H. eg, in Liberty Wharf we have more space. The ground floor areas will be 80-90k sq ft and we only have to have 50k sq ft over entire site (P1 and P2) and a sig proportion of that must be near the gardens, etc.
LM: There is no explanation of this in the applications. Also town must be integrated with new quarter – how are these links going to be made? Will they be through a dead zone (until B2 and 6 come)?
PS: WF5 – this is about connecting pedestrian routes within the WF.
LM: The 6 buildings may take 10 or more years. In the mean time the routes terminate by the dual carriageway. The diagonal route proposed has been abandoned. Now B4 occupies the corner and pedestrians will have to go around it to get to the site – subtle changes, but changes. B4, 1 and 5 and cp are now being given indiv access points (underground in H scheme, but changed now) – more like a pedestrian free zone as conflict between cars entering and pedestrians.
JDC: Mention two ramps coming from underground parking area to Winter Gardens – not clear if ingress or egress. [DE: Both.]
DE: Generous colonades around B4, other colonades and a park area.
JDC: There is a logical arrangement of colonades (N and E of 4 and N and west of 5) linking to square, about same size as Royal Sq and set back from road. This is to afford protection for pedestrians and also so we can plant trees, because we believe in high qual open space.
LM: This is a fuzzy policy and the applicant could have explained simply and coherently as to how they have been met. It is a big project but it’s hard to get to the underlying message.
PS: [To DE] WF7 – tall buildings policy. These must be of the highest quality. Does the MP supersede it?
DE: To an extent, yes. This SPG was written when there were 3 schemes on the books with varying number of storeys.
PS: Does the proposal comply with MP objectives and how?
LM: Broadly goes back to 2009 amendment which changed the sequencing. The applicants should have demonstrated how they are meeting the MP ideals. We don’t know how and when integration with town will take place – H said 4 years and now it’s 10 or more years or not at all. Without the sinking of the road for connectivity, there is no MP.
DE: The bridge over it will have the same connectivity.
LM: Are you saying there is no bridge (breach?)
Argument that Principle Objectives do (DE) and don’t (LM) include the sinking of the road!
LM: The road has disappeared so there is not a seamless connection.
PS: Diff docs say different things ref connectivity – the MP sends people to the two docs which are different.
LM: New circs à need to review MP. All the uses are wrapped in together, but now the phasing for the new homes may be at least 10 years away, the 388 homes won’t be in this IP – so a non-delivery for IP plans of homes in St H in order to help save greenfield sites – one of the reasons States memmbers agreed to it Can’t just cheery pcika nd have an IFC and leave out the other bits.
LH: Extensive sites on N of town ID’d for redev, eg, JCG – also Westwater and Zephyrus have permissions. Yes, within the MP, the residential bits will take longer. [DE: That was always the case.]
LM: If dev is on other sites and is compromised here, why doesn’t Minister revisit it?
JDC: We are meeting the objectives for mixed use.
LM: MPs change – if it’s clear now the delivery plan is changing it, we think MP should be reassessed and include delivery dates and not a commando approach.
Debate on timings (how happened, why, etc) and if needed, etc, went on. PS: You can put timings to these, but things get in the way…
LM: Yes, agree, but this is of great significance to Island, and decisions should have been made in the public domain. MP amendment very hard to interpret. See schedule 2 of planning obligation agreement, leaseholder’s covenants. There must be financial safeguards in place before they can start and build in accordance with phasing plans.
SOS (as member of public): When doing plans normal practice ot do a Plan B and a risk assessment. The public don’t know what Plan A and B are and what the risk is.
LM: H drew up great scheme (before recession) but was fundamentally flawed because of so much underground work to be done that all the stuff on top is too much for it. Cohen dropped the underground works realising poss problems – then in 2011 and Amendment instructions were fudged.
JDC: That’s not we said!
LM: So it would be great if you deliver the lot but there is no £ viability. Where are the funding, planning and review – just a few flimsy pages of the Amendment. Public certainly doesn’t know what is happening Plan and Process both flawed JDC are stuck with something they can’t develop. Planning dept needs to man up and say what’s going on. States’ official position is that project can be delivered. We want to see reactions from Planning and Ministerial level on such huge changes. You say it is deliverable (not in way MP said) so MP is being nibbled away at – so we need to see these matters being addressed.
DE: Ongoing correspondence with LM and BL ref B5. The Minister is content with what’s going on and will monitor and review MP when considers it necessary and appropriate to do so.
LM: In terms of time scale, MP needs to be looked at as time scales and remits have moved so much.
PS: Ref B4 I looked a letter of 25 June 2015 to Mr Nicholson (DE), condition 34. [LM: there is a prior letter. DE also mentioned a similar one.] On completion of sale of 4 and 5, the net receipts will be used for underground cp and park. When others are sold, they will fund road sinking à then onto Phase 2. Financials are redacted. ‘Therefore likely additional funding will be required.’ (Such as other buildings.)
LM: Do we or do we not have money to do this? I will be nearly 70 when these profits will appear if they do. Funding gap of £13m and tho promoted as more than just offices, JDC had to take a loan.
JDC: The parking net receipts (with B1) would have covered this temporary shortfall/loan.
LM: The States loan was removed in Oct 2014 because knew road wouldn’t go down. Then several months’ vacuum … when we brought it up, the planning etc, had it up on website within 24 hours.
PS: H didn’t happen because of £ viability, but the model was there. Is condition 29 9and another) seeking to do the job of the bonds and safeguards established during H?
DE: No. This is because there was huge risk to public if H failed. Now the risk is just around one office building, and the risk is with JDC, not the public – the bonds aren’t needed.
PS: B4 and 5 go beyond red line, so…?
DE: Minister conscious of all this and sought to cover this.
PS: No enforceability?
DE: You are right: no. The T & Cs are limited in order to allow PM to regulate (but he has no claim on land, etc).
LM: There was a mis-step on planning – PM has relinquished control by allowing one building at a time, so he needs to do a Policy/Planning Obligation.
[Argument continues along same lines.]
JDC: The PPM cannot require the developer to build B6. It is not enforceable.