National Trust spells out its opposition to development of PEH field

Its letter of opposition comes as Planning extended the representation deadline, which was due to be today, by five days to Sunday, due to the States’ website being offline recently.

The Trust was concerned that if permission was given it could set a precedent for developers to put forward similar developments and lead to ‘less altruistic development proposals’.

In its letter, the Trust said that while it understood that Policy S5 could allow for a green field to be developed if it was deemed to be of strategic importance, the applicant’s letter had not shown that there was no alternative site available that was more suitable.

‘Without such evidence it is impossible to make an objective consideration of the applicant’s assertions,’ it said.

‘The absence of demonstrative evidence relating to the choice of this site, over others, raises questions over how the choice was reached, and therefore, in our opinion, currently fails the test of Policy S5.’

The applicant’s statement referring to sustainable development did not address how the development of the site would represent a wise use of natural resources or how it would adapt and become more resilient to climate change.

Aside from a mention of solar panels on the roof, the application did not mention any mitigation of the development’s effect.

‘To provide 120 car parking spaces for half the number of units... seems utterly at odds with any form of sustainable development,’ wrote the Trust.

Although this was an application seeking approval in principle, ‘it is our view that the information presented is scant, under-developed and lacks the evidence required to set aside the established policies of the IDP’.

Without a development framework, giving a thorough examination of the proposal and a ‘robust series of tests identifying the uniqueness of this situation’, the trust feared a precedent could be set. ‘The authority may be creating a gateway for non-governmental agencies to pursue an aggressive legal argument to justify their own, less altruistic development proposals.’

The Trust said it was not against the development per se and it could support an application that did not disturb the field, and which protected the land’s function for future generations.

‘If the field was bought with the intention of expanding the hospital, which no doubt it was, the States of Guernsey have failed to translate this into an effective planning policy that permits this to happen,’ it said.

Application opponent Deputy Steve Falla welcomed the extension to the deadline, but said that some people have been emailing deputies with their objection.

‘Of course it no longer sits with the Assembly and there will not be another States debate on this issue,’ he said.

n Anyone wanting to make a representation should email planning@gov.gg

n The proposal for key-worker housing on the site has been put forward by Policy & Resources.