Deputy keen on cooling off period after planning decisions

The Island Development Plan, which sets the rules on what can be developed where, was introduced in 2016, but has caused controversy, with a focus on development in the north of the island.

St Sampson’s deputy Carl Meerveld believes too much power has been handed to civil servants, leaving deputies powerless to act in the interests of the electorate when a planning permission was refused or approved.

‘We have given away control to the civil service,’ he said.

Development & Planning Authority president John Gollop announced earlier this month that he was standing down from the job as he could no longer balance his own views with the planning policies.

His exit followed the resignation of Deputy Lester Queripel in February, who cited concerns about the IDP as one of his reasons for leaving.

Deputy Meerveld felt the DPA had grown into a quasi-judicial committee, like the Transport Licensing Authority, where the decisions are just reviewed by politicians.

‘We have very little discretion,’ he said. ‘I have great sympathy for the difficult position Deputy Gollop and the committee have found themselves in.’

His suggestion is to lay a requete that would allow an ‘overlay’ to be introduced to all planning permissions.

‘All planning permissions approved under the IDP would have a cooling off period of 90 days, where it can be brought back before the DPA or the Assembly for amendment,’ he said.

‘So deputies could intervene, if it was in the public interest.’

Currently if the political board goes against the IDP and rejects an application, an applicant can appeal to an independent panel who will look at whether the decision matched with the IDP rules.

Deputy Meerveld said his idea would only work if a political planning decision could not go before an appeal tribunal.

He said unless power was given back to deputies in some way, then planning should be handed wholly to the civil servants. That way the public could see who was making the decisions and not blame the politicians unfairly.

He said in the distant past deputies did make subjective planning decisions and that system was not fair. But he felt the pendulum had now swung too far the other way, taking away all planning powers from deputies.

‘We need to bring things back to the middle, so there is a clearly defined plan and objectives, but there is the chance for deputies to represent the public interest,’ he said.

The IDP was voted through by the States at the start of the political term.

Deputy Meerveld said many of the newer deputies had not known enough about the plan to stop or change it.

‘There were a lot of new States members and we were told that

it had taken 15 years to develop

it,’ he said.

‘We were told that pulling at the threads [amending the policies] would mean they had to start the whole process again, so we were told to approve it as presented.’

He said he was not alone in having worries about the IDP, with some deputies keen to revert to old rural and urban area plans, while others have suggested amending the IDP and forcing developers to develop brownfield sites over green field ones.

However, Deputy Meerveld was concerned changing the law would take too long.

He said it would take time to develop his requete to introduce the overlay and he planned to talk to the planners and the DPA about it.

He hoped it might be placed later this year, as he did not want it to become an election issue.