Contractors hit out at Gas Works planning refusal

Tuesday 16 February 2021

Architects, engineers and building firms have banded together to express their “dismay and anger” at the rejection of plans for 122 new affordable homes on the former Gas Works site.

In a rare step, the group has written directly to the Planning Director, arguing that a meeting to review the Tunnel Street development plans was significantly flawed, and claiming that the impact of the decision will put 80 jobs at risk.

Andium Homes’ plan for 122 homes on the former Gas Works site were rejected following concerns over damages to archaeological features on the site.

The plans also included the extension of Millennium Park and an underground car park.

Pictured: The plans would have seen 122 homes built on the site of the former Jersey Gas premises.

Proposals to develop the Gas Works site, which includes former Jersey Gas premises, the old gasometer and several other properties, have been in the pipeline for several years. Private developers originally received planning permission for 253 homes on the site, before local housing company Andium Homes took over ownership.

In February 2018, the States Assembly agreed to new proposals for the site, with a reduced number of homes, parking for 150 to 200 vehicles and a significant extension to the adjacent Millennium Park. 

Preliminary site investigations and consultations followed, leading to plans based on the 2018 States’ decision prepared for review and approval by the Public Planning Committee. In a meeting on 14 January 2021, however, the Committee turned them down due to concerns over nearby buried archaeology. 

Rok Regal Construction, Waddington Architects, T&G Structural Engineers, MSPlanning, and Museum of London Archaeology believe it was a decision strongly influenced by a “flawed meeting process and format” and have written to Jersey’s Planning Director to request an urgent reconsideration of the decision. 

Pictured: 80 jobs in the construction industry will be at risk if plans do not go ahead the group said.

Continued delay, they stated, will have “significant economic and social impact” and is also putting at least 80 jobs in the construction sector jobs at risk, at a time “Jersey should be supporting and stimulating its economy and community wellbeing”.

“The meeting lacked the usual balance expected of these occasions,” Robert Matthews, CEO of lead contractor Rok Regal Construction, said. 

“From the start, its focus was on representations that development would result in the loss of significant important archaeological features, despite a report from Museum of London experts emphasising this would not be the case. 

“There was little opportunity allowed for the project team to provide further reassurance on the matter. As islanders, we totally respect the value of our history and heritage, with plans in place to ensure protection of anything encountered. 

“By not following due process, the meeting failed to allow a reasoned examination of this, leading to what we believe is a deeply flawed outcome.”

The group also believes the meeting format contributed to its unbalanced nature. Covid restrictions meant it was held online, creating challenges for both Planning Committee and participants. One particularly frustrating aspect, the group said, was being unable to gain the chairman’s attention at crucial points. 

“We were told to use the online ‘chat function’, but anything posted seemed to be missed, leaving us literally waving our hands at the screen trying to attract someone’s attention,” Mr Matthews said.

“While we appreciate the need for virtual meetings currently, it’s highly frustrating that the limitations of technology are not considered.”

Pictured: The group believes the meeting format contributed to its allegedly unbalanced nature.

The group said they were left “dismayed and angered” by the meeting and its outcome and called for “a more balanced review”. Failure to do so soon, they said, will jeopardises a project several years in the planning with “highly positive benefits” for the island. 

“Numerous small and large local companies have prepared for this development, assuming previous planning approval and States endorsement meant it was certain to go ahead,” Mr Matthews explained. 

“They have deferred other work opportunities, kept staff on salary and invested in plant. Not going ahead will have an economic impact on these businesses and the wider island. While the immediate project value is around £70m, the total contribution may be three times this amount, considering spend in the economy by the companies and workers involved.

“Then there’s the potential social impact, with jobs lost or under threat, including apprentices and trainees. And of course, the community ultimately loses access to affordable homes, commuter and shopper parking, and a fantastic piece of additional green space. Any balanced review should surely take these factors into account.”