Wednesday 14 May 2014
Guernsey Press Enquiry:
I have been wading through the report and the key criticisms of the departments' handling seem to be -
- The departments have no clear idea how many tourist beds were needed island-wide.
- That the planners relied on the Commerce and Employment Department in an 'unquestioning way'.
- Failing to ask the applicants for detailed information about refurbishment costs.
- The departments making the decision, despite lacking the evidence needed to make a determination.
- Focussing too heavily on any decision setting a precedent for other developments.
- A lack of weight being given to the need for homes for older people.
I am keen to have these issues addressed and how the departments are looking to improve their handling of cases in future following this decision.
As I mentioned, the story is looking to run on Saturday, which I know is too short notice for a response.
However, if the departments are able to respond as soon as possible after the weekend, we will get something in the paper.
Environment Department Response:
Policy RE12 of the Rural Area Plan is applicable to proposals that would result in the loss of visitor accommodation, and has three main elements against which such proposals must be judged.
The Planning Tribunal identified a lack of evidence put forward concerning one of the tests in Policy RE12 relating to whether the proposal would 'prejudice the retention of an adequate stock of visitor accommodation across the Island'.
Although the Commerce and Employment Department opposed the loss of this sizable and popular hotel on the basis of its effect on the Island's stock of visitor accommodation, and this conclusion was accepted by the Environment Department when it refused planning permission, the Tribunal considered that there was insufficient evidence presented by the Environment Department to sustain this conclusion. However, it also concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate compliance with the criteria of Policy RE12 which seeks to maintain an adequate stock of visitor accommodation which is important to the economy of the Island.
The Tribunal, however, agreed with the Environment Department's decision and the view of the Commerce and Employment Department that the proposal did not satisfy either of the two other parts of Policy RE12, one or the other of which must be satisfied in order for the proposal to be acceptable in principle.
In light of the criticism, officers of the Environment Department and the Commerce and Employment Department will be meeting shortly to discuss and then implement improvements in their respective processes for requesting, collating and presenting evidence in relation to the first part of Policy RE12 relating to retention of an adequate stock of visitor accommodation.
The Tribunal also criticised the Environment Department for the lack of reasoning given in its consideration of the application to the need for the proposed use.
In reaching its decision, the Environment Department followed principles established by previous planning case Law in Guernsey, arising from past decisions of the Royal Court and the Guernsey Court of Appeal. This in essence meant in this case that as the principle of the proposed change of use was unacceptable having regard to the specific Policy RE12, relating to change of use of visitor accommodation, the Department had to refuse permission. Therefore, it did not give detailed reasoning in relation to other matters as it had to refuse permission in any event.
Consequently the issue of need for the proposed use was not assessed in detail at the time of the original planning decision. The Appeal Tribunal undertook an assessment of this issue by reference to the 'departure' provisions in the Planning Legislation and identified a need. Nevertheless the Tribunal's conclusion was still that the proposal was more than a minor departure from Policy RE12 and that the appeal could not be allowed under Guernsey planning legislation. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had not made a request for the application to be considered as a minor departure from the Plan policy so that this part of the statutory provisions was not invoked.
The Environment Department has noted the comments of the Appeal Tribunal with regard to this aspect and will consider with the benefit of legal advice whether, and if so what changes might be required to its procedures or practices as a consequence of this appeal decision.
With regard to information submitted with the proposal regarding refurbishment costs, the Environment Department has already committed to producing an advice note for applicants concerning the information expected to be provided with such an application.
Contact Information:
Jim Rowles, Director of Planning
Environment Department
Tel: 717200
