Thursday 01 October 2015
Media Enquiry from Open Lines Column, Guernsey Press:
Dear Sir
If the spokesman for Island Development Ltd is correct in what he writes about the proposed development on agricultural land at Les Blanches (Guernsey Press 18 September 2015), the machinations going on behind the scenes would have all the appearances of a disgraceful indictment of the Environment Department and the Housing Department.
If what the spokesman writes is correct, it would appear that for more than five years those two departments of State have been working hand in glove with Island Development Ltd to put together a planning proposal which will allow this company to subvert the most important aims of the Rural Area Plan, the very plan which the Environment Department is meant to uphold.
If what the spokesman wrote is correct, one is immediately reminded of the question posed by the Roman playwright, Juvenal, when thinking of just such behaviour - "Quis custodiet ipsos custodies" - "Who will guard the guards themselves?"
I am somewhat surprised that the Guernsey Housing Association has been linked to these five-plus years of talks because nothing about social housing at Les Blanches is mentioned in the 'Development Programme' found in its Business Plan (2013-2017). It listed only two sites in St Martin's parish where feasibility studies for social housing were being carried out - Longue Rue and Rue des Coutures. One can only presume that two years ago the GHA had not identified a need for social housing in St Martin's parish that these two sites could not accommodate. So, who five years ago identified that special need in St Martin's that the spokesman referred to?
It looks very much like the GHA was asked late in the day to confer the soubriquet of social housing on the proposal as a disgraceful means of evading the policies protecting agricultural land. It was only brought in to be the magic key to unlock this site for development.
It is correct that Policy RCE1 can provide a route for social housing to be built in the rural area by allowing it, at the Environment Department discretion, to be assessed under Policy RH2 rather than RH1. However, the RAP says this would only be in very exceptional circumstances and the proposal would also need to meet the provisions of Policy RD1.
Is there anything very exceptional about this proposal to merit a very exceptional decision in its favour? The answer is "No" - there is absolutely nothing special to merit exceptional treatment so that Policy RH2 should not override Policy RH1.
Policy RD1 only applies to developments that are clearly demonstrated to be essential (my emphasis) and may, exceptionally (again), be allowed where there is no alternative site available that, in the opinion of the department, is more suitable.
Firstly, there are alternative sites for this development in the urban area and on brownfield sites within rural centres. Additionally, there is no information in the public domain to tie the proposal to St Martins beyond the fact that the developers own the three fields at Les Blanches and have been trying to capitalise by building on them for the last 30 years or so.
Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to show that this proposal is essential as Policy PD1 requires. Building a vital piece of infrastructure such as a sewage pumping station or an electricity substation on agricultural land might be considered essential both in their siting (they are serving houses in that area) and importance (overflowing of sewage causes disease and lack of mains electricity is not acceptable nowadays). Building a housing estate is not essential. Including social housing in the proposal does not automatically make it essential. It might be 'desirable' but that is not the same as 'essential'. We know that the number of people on waiting lists for housing hasn't increased in several years (Guernsey Press, 14 September 2015) so that there is no crisis in the provision of social housing. In the absence of a crisis in the provision of social housing, building social housing on agricultural land in the rural area cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered essential. It should fail Policy RD1.
Rural Economy Policies accept that "in exceptional circumstances some agricultural land will be needed for an essential development of overriding importance to the island." Again the policies demand that a rural location must be fully justified by there being no appropriate alternative sites. In fact, there are bags of alternative sites, there are no exceptional circumstances and the proposal is not essential. The proposal fails the Rural Policies.
The very fact that the Island Development Co. has been dickering with the two departments for over five years clearly shows that it is not addressing an urgent need and, therefore, building on agricultural land cannot be considered as 'essential'. It all points to this being a proposal which has been constructed by the developer and, if what the spokesman wrote is true, is in cahoots with the Housing and Environment Departments to produce a proposal which will allow development on this specific site. The only need that it has been constructed to meet is the need of the developer to capitalise on its investment. In this it might appear to have been helped by the Environment and the Housing Departments.
In summary this proposal should be rejected because it is not essential, it is not tied to this area and neither the proposal nor the circumstances are exceptional.
The one big problem with this proposal is that the decision will not turn on facts alone. If the Environment Department so chooses, it can ignore all the hard facts which would otherwise result in this proposal's rejection and instead give it the go-ahead because of their own opinions and prejudices, no matter how wrong or self-serving they may be.
The crux of the matter is how the word, 'essential' is defined. For me something is essential if its absence will result in a serious, negative outcome. Unfortunately, some, like Humpty Dumpty in 'Through the Looking-Glass', will tailor their definition to suit their own needs or prejudices. - 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
I hope (and believe) that what the spokesman for Island Development Ltd wrote was overblown and that the minds of the five political members of the Environment Department are in fact genuinely open on this proposal. If they are not and they choose to behave like Humpty-Dumpty by deciding that this proposal is 'essential', they would flag up that anything can happen if politicians are allowed to overrule, in this case, the written and clearly expressed aims and sentiments of the RAP. If this proposal is accepted, you might as well tear up the RAP and UAP (and any other planning document) as there will be nothing that politicians cannot overturn. The new Island Development Plan will either be superfluous or will have to be couched in such restrictive language and have to cover so many conceivable eventualities that it will run to several, opaque volumes... and even then some people will try to circumvent it with weasel words.
Don't let this happen and don't betray the trust of the people.
Environment Department Response:
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your correspondent's comments.
The Environment Department's Planning Division encourages pre-application discussions regarding development proposals, when informal advice can be given regarding the relevant planning policies and other material considerations. All advice given at pre-application stage is however without prejudice to the outcome of a formal planning application, which is assessed on its merits against the adopted planning policies of the States and relevant planning considerations. Other States departments may be involved in pre-application discussions on occasion; however this is also without prejudice to the outcome of a formal planning application.
With regard to the proposal to which your correspondent refers, this is subject of a current planning application, which is expected to be considered by the Board of the Environment Department at an Open Planning Meeting in due course. At that time, all of the relevant planning policies and other material considerations will be fully assessed, and all representations received carefully considered, prior to a decision being made on the application.
In reaching its decision, the Board is obliged by Guernsey's Planning Law to follow the planning policies as set out in the current Development Plan, which in this case is the Rural Area Plan, unless they consider that the proposal involves only a minor departure from that Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, the draft Island Development Plan, which is presently at Public Planning Inquiry stage and has not yet been adopted by the States, is not a material consideration when determining current planning applications.
Your correspondent refers to a number of planning policies contained within the Rural Area Plan. As noted above, all relevant planning policies will be considered fully by the Environment Board before a decision on the application is made. However, for the avoidance of doubt, Policy RH2, which allows for social housing development within the Rural Area in specific circumstances, will be of key relevance in this case, whilst Policy RD1 relating to essential development is not of relevance in this context. Contrary to suggestions made by your correspondent, there is no requirement in Policy RH2 for proposed social housing development to be regarded as 'essential' under Policy RD1 nor for it to be 'tied' specifically to the area of the Island in which it is located.
It is hoped that the above information is helpful to your readers in explaining the current position and the planning process that has been and will be followed by the Environment Department in relation to this proposal.
Contact Information:
Jim Rowles, Director of Planning
Environment Department
Tel: 717200
