Deputy quits Planning

Deputy Queripel was elected to the DPA shortly after the 2016 elections but said that since then he has often been a lone voice opposing various matters during committee meetings.

‘I don’t agree with several of the processes and procedures the DPA have put in place and I don’t align myself with certain policies in the Island Development Plan,’ he said, in a statement outlining some of his reasons for quitting.

He added that he could not see the point of continuing in the role and perpetuating this conflict for the remaining 17 months of this political term.

His decision had not come ‘out of the blue’ but had evolved over the last two-and-three-quarter years.

‘I think it’s important for me to emphasise that I have nothing but the utmost respect for my former DPA colleagues and also for the staff in the DPA office.’

He said there were many examples of votes in which his was the sole dissenting voice, but referred to four in particular.

One was the decision by the DPA to hold site visits after an open planning meeting has taken place. These visits were not open to the public and were followed by the panel returning to the meeting room to conclude their discussions before reaching a decision.

But, said Deputy Queripel, the final deliberations take place behind closed doors: ‘How can that justifiably be known as an open planning meeting?’

He believed the committee should make its site visit before the OPM and then the rest of the discussion could take place in public.

Deputy Queripel says the debate surrounding the 2017 annual monitoring report of the Island Development Plan was a ‘debacle’. He believed this should have been placed as an agenda item to be discussed by the States, but instead it was included as an appendix.

In order to get it debated, an amendment needed to be placed. ‘Several weeks of uncertainty then ensued due to the fact that the DPA were undecided as to which members of the committee were actually going to submit the amendment and when.’

Due to the uncertainty, deputies Victoria Oliver and Richard Graham prepared an amendment of their own.

Eventually, the DPA compiled its own amendment and the two deputies withdrew theirs.

‘This whole debacle went on for several weeks and should never have even happened in the first place. The DPA could have submitted the report as an agenda item and avoided all of that nonsense,’ said Deputy Queripel.

A States policy of ensuring that for every 20 units of accommodation built there be a proportion made available as affordable housing is not working, he said. ‘Since the plan was adopted in 2016, not a single unit of affordable housing has been provided under that policy.’

He wants to see a requete calling for the threshold to be reduced to 10, but his colleagues say that any requete should only ask the States to look into the matter as part of the five-year review of the IDP in 2021.

‘The DPA, and the States, needs to be a lot more proactive than that if we are going to address the current housing crisis,’ he said.

Finally, he said, he did not agree with the lengthy process of drawing up development frameworks for projects that may not take place.

One alone could take many months to complete. ‘I don’t agree with that time-consuming and extremely costly procedure. Therefore, in my view, the procedure itself needs to be addressed and possibly even dispensed with altogether. Suffice to say I was once again a “lone voice” on that one.’

He wished his former DPA colleagues and staff the best for the future. ‘They have an extremely difficult 17 months ahead of them.’