Friday 10 October 2014
Environment Department response to media enquiry from Guernsey Press.
Guernsey Press Enquiry:
Could we please have Environment's response to our story on p5 today with Kevin Stewart saying he would 'pull down derelict greenhouses tomorrow.' During the debate businessmen also called for a States vote to change the law next week.
What is Environment's response to this?
What is its reaction to Deputy Stewart referring to Environment as the 'prevention of business' department?
Would the department consider bringing forward separate proposals to change the law on greenhouses?
What is the department's response to Deputy Stewarts claim that he and the chief minister are looking to 'short circuit' the process to speed up the introduction of the new development plans?
Environment Department Response:
The Environment Department is extremely disappointed by the Commerce and Employment Minister's statements as reported today.
His reference to the Environment Department as the 'prevention of business' department' is disrespectful, unprofessional and could not be further from the truth.
The planning process supports and facilitates inward investment to the Island and the growth of our existing businesses. For example, feedback from significant figures involved directly in large-scale business development on the Island has been consistently good and the Environment Department's approach to the implementation of its planning mandate has been compared extremely favourably to that in other jurisdictions.
The thrust of Deputy Stewart's argument appears to be that redundant horticultural vinery sites throughout the Island should be redeveloped for new industrial development.
This argument is flawed for the following reasons:
- There is a significant over-provision of industrial and storage accommodation on the Island with many existing vacant premises and sites within areas currently zoned for industry and this is projected to increase.
- There is already policy provision within the existing Rural Area Plan and Urban Area Plan for industrial development in appropriate circumstances on redundant vinery sites. These policies were significantly relaxed in 2010. Since that time, however, very few of these opportunities have been taken up.
- These factors signify that the main issue is not the availability of land for small business, but the affordability of premises. This is a matter which is within the mandate of the Commerce and Employment Department to investigate and bring proposals forward to deal with. It cannot be resolved through the land use planning system. So far, the Commerce and Employment Department has not addressed this issue.
- Former vineries constitute agricultural land. The wholesale development of vineries across the Island for industrial purposes, aside from not being required due to the existing availability of a surplus of industrial and storage land, would result in the significant loss of agricultural land and extensive suburbanisation and development of areas of the Island, often in rural areas, for industry in a piecemeal and uncoordinated way. There is no compelling economic justification given the current availability of industrial land to undertake such environmental vandalism which would over time change the face of the Island forever.
- It should be remembered that the overall quality of the environment in Guernsey itself plays a key role as an 'economic enabler', being primarily responsible for a number of high profile examples of inward investment in recent years. In this context, short-sighted and poorly thought-through development aspirations which have the effect of blighting the very environment which attracts many people including entrepreneurs to the Island in the first place are misguided in the extreme.
The new Island Development Plan will however make further provision for some redundant vineries to come forward for small scale business development on a carefully planned and coordinated basis. Opportunities for this are however likely to be very limited having regard particularly to the need to protect the environment of the Island and areas of contiguous good quality agricultural land.
Publication of the draft Island Development Plan has been delayed by five months and will take place in February 2015. The Environment Department and Policy Council, in conjunction with the Housing Department, Treasury and Resources Department and Commerce and Employment Department investigated the consequences of this delay and have reported the conclusions to the Policy Council. As part of that work a summary of commercial premises needs was provided by the Commerce and Employment Department. Analysis of this summary revealed that almost all of the needs identified can be facilitated under current planning policy. In this respect, in all bar two specific instances, the need identified is either something which can be provided for directly under current policy, something which accords in principle with the broad thrust of current policy, or something for which potential exists under current policy.
The main exception to this relates to the development of Photo-Voltaic 'farms' on former vinery sites, which is effectively precluded under present policy. In this regard, however, it is noted that the evidence of 'need' for this form of development is currently very limited. This evidence does not appear to signify a very substantial pressure for development which would be undermined by a 5-month delay in delivery of the draft Island Development Plan. Furthermore, having regard to the Environment Department's evidence report concerning an Approach to Agriculture and Redundant Vineries, published in July 2013, and to the Key Messages, Issues and Options consultation document published in August last year, it should be noted that potential for such development under the new IDP is likely to be limited.
In one other case, where the need was expressed by Commerce and Employment in terms that "Key horticultural sites should be protected but allowed to develop ancillary facilities for non‐horticultural purposes which may be used by a third party", the two limbs of the stated need appear to be contradictory and conflicting and therefore this would be difficult to achieve under either existing or future planning policy.
There are existing policies for the reuse of redundant buildings which would include those on former vinery sites. There are also policies to protect strategically important horticultural sites. However, it would be difficult, if not impossible, as appears to be the intent of this need, to create a planning policy which allows change of use of parts of a site whilst effectively protecting the overall horticultural function of the site as a whole.
As noted above, with the exception of two specific issues, neither of which appears from the evidence presented to be of such particular urgency or significance that a five month delay would impact significantly on the Island's economy, the premises needs identified by the Commerce and Employment Department are capable of delivery under the current development plans and do not require the new Island Development Plan as a prerequisite in order to be achieved.
The existing Development Plans, the Urban Area Plan and Rural Area Plan, have both been updated through interim reviews, most recently in 2010, and these reviews centred on policies relating to employment and the economy. In 2007, the policies relating to the visitor economy were significantly revised and updated, whilst in 2010 substantial policy changes were made to increase flexibility for industrial activity including on redundant vinery sites in both Urban and Rural areas.
Consequently, the current development plans remain able to accommodate the vast majority of needs identified by the Commerce and Employment Department in its list of commercial premises needs.
The assertion by Deputy Stewart and he and the Chief Minister are "looking to 'short circuit' the process to speed up the introduction of the new development plans" is perverse in the extreme. In reporting to the Policy Council the issue of speeding up the process was considered and two options specifically looked at as set out below. The Policy Council agreed with the findings, noting that the process could not be speeded up and that the problems caused by the delay so concerning Deputy Stewart were perceptions rather than reality.
The first option, involved amending the legislation to remove some of the inbuilt process delays, and whilst this was seen as attractive at face value the reality was that it is an impractical option.
Detailed development plans set the basis under which land can be developed. That development may have significant impacts for the land owners, neighbours and islanders generally. The plans certainly impact on land values including developed property values through third party impacts. As such the planning process, and especially the inquiry process, is designed to ensure all parties have sufficient opportunity to understand the potential impacts of the new plans, make representations, and have those representations assessed. The process is designed to be human rights compliant and, one hopes, be able to resist judicial review. As such any amendment to the legislation aimed at speeding up the process requires very careful examination and should be open to States debate. The process from identifying a need for legislative change through evaluating the options, drafting the States report, consulting stakeholders, States debate and legislative drafting, routinely takes 2 or more years. Even if that normal process could be substantially reduced and it was agreed that such legislation changes should take priority over all other legislation, one should allow at least 6 months to take the report and subsequent legislation through the States process. Those 6 months would by necessity distract the very staff seeking to draft the Island Development Plan and rather than expediting the process would, in all likelihood, introduce further delays.
The second option - draft the policies faster - could only be achieved through additional resources (attempts to recruit such resources have already met with no success) or through cutting corners and rushing the job. This latter approach carries significant risks down the line should, through the planning inquiry process, the policies be shown to be defective resulting in a prolonged inquiry and the need for significant redrafting before the IDP can be submitted to the States.
Contact Information:
Jim Rowles, Director of Planning
Environment Department
Tel: 717200
