The Town Parking Debate: A Discussion and Suggestions going forward

The Policy: Parking for Every New Home

The States Assembly has approved a proposal requiring every new housing unit to include a parking space. Brought forward by St Helier Constable Simon Crowcroft, the measure aims to address parking disadvantages faced by town residents and passed with strong support, 26 votes to 11.

Planning Minister Steve Luce warned that mandatory parking could significantly raise housing costs—by £30,000 to £70,000 per unit—adding £175 to £410 in monthly mortgage payments and potentially pricing buyers out of the market.

Town dwellers, particularly in St Helier, often live in compact developments where car ownership is lower and public transport more viable. Critics such as Deputy Luce argue that mandating parking in all developments could inflate housing costs, reduce green space, and discourage sustainable transport. But for carers visiting elderly or disabled residents, limited on-street parking and inflexible planning rules can make access harder - not easier. This raises a moral tension: Should planning policy prioritize car access for all, or tailor provision to context and need?

Rural Privilege and Political Optics

Without wishing to use an “ad hominem” argument, it should be noted that those voting for retention of the Minister’s existing policy are often rural Deputies with ample private parking. This touches on a deeper issue of representational fairness:

If policymakers with rural properties and often parking for at least two cars impose uniform parking rules that disproportionately affect urban renters, first-time buyers, or low-income families, it risks reinforcing structural inequality.

The optics of such decisions - especially when made without robust urban consultation - can feel like a form of disenfranchisement, where town residents’ lived realities are overlooked in favour of suburban norms.

A More Nuanced Approach?

Deputy Luce’s existing Planning policy risked undermining urban equity, sustainability, and care access. A more just approach would recognize the diversity of Jersey’s communities - and ensure that planning serves all residents, not just those with driveways.

However, Andium Homes, Jersey’s social housing provider, warned that mandatory parking—especially underground in urban areas—could significantly raise costs and reduce the affordability of homes under schemes like Homebuy.

So what alternatives are there?

Urban planners internationally advocate for flexible, context-sensitive parking policies, especially in dense or transit-rich areas.

- Reduced or zero-parking developments near transport hubs
- Shared or flexible parking for carers and service providers
- Incentives for car clubs, cycling, and public transport

Such models aim to balance mobility, affordability, and environmental goals - without assuming every home needs a private car space.

Based on available reporting, such alternatives were not prominently discussed during the States Assembly debate or in the proposition brought by Constable Simon Crowcroft.

The focus was on ensuring parking for town residents, but without clear evidence of exploring more nuanced or flexible models that might better serve diverse needs—especially for carers or low-car households. A more inclusive approach would consider tailored solutions that reflect the varied realities of Jersey’s communities.