Planning Obligation Agreement

2025.10.21

4.11   Deputy J. Renouf of St. Brelade of the Minister for the Environment regarding the Community Use Monitoring Programme (OQ.232/2025):

Further to Written Question 348/2025, will the Minister explain why the reporting requirements regarding the Community Use Monitoring Programme, as set out in the Planning Obligation Agreement and entered into by his department, have not been enforced? What investigations, if any, have been undertaken into non-compliance with the P.O.A. (Planning Obligation Agreement) and what steps, if any, have been taken to ensure compliance with the P.O.A. going forward?

Deputy S.G. Luce of Grouville and St. Martin (The Minister for the Environment):

Under Articles 25 and 40 of the Planning and Building Law, which is the chief officer who enters into planning obligations and also determines if there has been a breach of development controls and whether it is expedient to pursue action. I, therefore, asked my chief officer within the Regulation Directorate for the facts into this case. The Directorate reports it does not routinely monitor compliance with all obligations contained within P.O.A.s, other than monitoring financial contributions that are due to be paid at appropriate trigger points and distributing funds to appropriate projects when proof of delivery has been obtained. There is a general expectation that developers will comply with their contractual obligations, as stipulated in the obligations registered with the Royal Court. In instances of non-compliance being brought to the attention of the Regulation Directorate, the planning compliance team will investigate and consider, in association with law advisers, whether legal proceedings are appropriate to secure compliance with the terms of a P.O.A. In this instance the compliance team have not previously registered an investigation regarding non-compliance with the Strive P.O.A. and as such there has been no compliance investigation.

1. Deputy J. Renouf :

I appreciate that it is for the chief officers to investigate but I have been asking questions about this now for some weeks, and I am surprised that there have been no actions taken as yet. The Planning Law requires these to be enforced. What message is it sending to the public that Planning Obligation Agreements entered into in the Royal Court can be so easily ignored?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

In this particular instance the Planning Obligation Agreement required a few things. The first thing it says: "Requires the owner to undertake a monitoring programme and provide updates to the chief officer, Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning and the Minister for Sustainable Economic Development." Also, if the take-up use by the community drops below 75 per cent of the offer, the owner must take steps to improve the take-up. In Written Question 348, which the Deputy refers to, it is clear that formal reports on the take-up had not been received, however, ad hoc updates are provided to the Department of the Economy. Whether that complies with undertaking a monitoring programme in providing updates I do not know. But further to that it was also confirmed in that same Written Answer that of the 4,044 hours that had to be offered, 3,500 hours were taken up, which represented 86 per cent of the take- up, which did not fall below the 75 per cent of which the owner should take steps to improve that. I can only add to that, Written Question 381 on the same subject from the same Deputy , the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning said that: "Strive have an active and collaborative relationship with Jersey Sport and with Island schools, sports and community groups in relation to the use of this facility." I can only further add if there are concerns about

the way the community use is being delivered we do have mechanisms, but to date no such concerns have been brought to my attention. However, if the Deputy is doing that maybe the investigation should be or could be opened.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Minister there was lots of crackling during your answer and I was worrying who was distracting you. It is just it might be you are distracting yourself. It might be a phone in your pocket. I do not know if you have got a phone in your pocket but there is some crackling during your answer, obviously you have not got a phone.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am not aware of any crackling from my pocket, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

If it is not you and then

Deputy S.G. Luce :

It might be my nervousness and the paper rattling in the microphone.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You have got a theory, have you?

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

It sounds like the microphone itself, it is internal by the sounds of it, not electrical. The Deputy Bailiff :

Is it?

Deputy M. Tadier :

Yes.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, we might give you a swap.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I am happy to talk from this microphone if it sounds better, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, it does sound better. Thank you very much, Minister. Yes, 2 questions, then we will go to the final supplementary.

2. Deputy A.F. Curtis of St. Clement:

The Minister highlights the numbers provided in Written Questions 348 and 381. But I think that the core that Deputy Renouf is trying to get to is the transparency. Given that the numbers provided represent a different perspective of the operating model, notably that while circa 3,500 time slots have been used, the take-up in 2024 was only 17,800 student hours against a predicted 107,000 student hours in the P.O.A. This is all technical that the Minister will find later. The core question is: will the Minister commit to ensuring that robust thorough publication is there so those who may be community groups, who may not know the full position of the operation can then obviously decide whether they need to pursue different use of the site, as in different use of the time-slot hours?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I appreciate that some of the statistics may have been a bit confusing and certainly some of the information on the original Written Question was confusing to me. I had to go back and ask for further clarification. It is important, I think, that everybody knows what has been written in the Planning Obligation Agreement and that everybody is very clear. I will go back to the department and ask for further clarification on that and make sure that both sides completely understand what is required and whether that information has been received. As for other planning obligations, I think I need to be very careful about how much resource I commit to this. I would stress obligations are registered in the Royal Court and I think there is an obligation there on the applicant, the developer, to comply with those, rather than the department to make sure that every one of those P.O.A.s is enforced, but the resources needed would be extreme.

3. Deputy A.F. Curtis :

The P.O.A. on the Strive site also highlighted the expected subsidy provided to the different groups, with schools being 100 per cent, sport being 89 per cent, community groups being 93 per cent and the Jersey Rugby Club being 98 per cent. Will he ensure that when he does engage with the operator for reporting that the current levels of subsidy are reported within that, as well as the hours?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

I will make sure that is done. I only have a summary of the P.O.A. in front of me and I was not aware of those particular percentages that the Deputy has so quoted.

4. Deputy H.L. Jeune of St. John , St. Lawrence and Trinity :

The Minister in his answer to Deputy Curtis reiterated that the P.O.A.s are registered in the Royal Court and it would, therefore, be up to those who feel that they are not being enforced to contact the department. Can I ask the Minister if there are any time limits or expiry provisions in enforcement of P.O.A.s or are they outstanding? If there are P.O.A.s that maybe have been put in place 10, 20 years ago that are now not being complied to, would they be able to follow up with the department to enforce them?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

As I stated in my original answer, we do not monitor these as such in the department. As such it is a bit difficult to answer the Deputy 's question, certainly going back that far. If the department are not actively looking at every P.O.A., how would they have the information to know that something had not been complied with? But I will certainly ask the question of officers and see what answer I get.

5. Deputy H.L. Jeune :

I think my original question was more about the public in understanding that if there is no time limit on P.O.A.s they will be able to contact the department if those P.O.A.s that they understand, even though there is from some time ago if they are not being complied to, they will be able to contact the department and they will be followed up.

Deputy S.G. Luce :

Sorry, I misunderstood the specifics of the Deputy 's question. I think 20 years is a long way in the past. My understanding is there are time limits and they are usually around 5 to 7 years.

6. Deputy J. Renouf :

The interesting thing here is that no government department has chased up the planning obligation, despite the fact that the Education Department, the Economic Development Department and the Environment Department were all signatories to the planning obligation in the Royal Court. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that in the future these planning obligations have some teeth and the public can have an expectation that there will be some work taken to ensure that they are enforced?

Deputy S.G. Luce :

As I said originally, if there are concerns about the way the community use in this application or this P.O.A. is being given, I do have the legal mechanism to address those concerns.

[11:30]

I said to date no such concerns have been brought to my attention but I certainly will take the Deputy 's question on board this morning. From what I intimate from him, he has concerns and I will look into them.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. To ensure that we complete the questions, from now on it will only be one other Member, other than the questioner, who has a chance to ask a supplementary question.