‘A revised IDP needs flexibility to reflect a changing economy’
A LOCAL architect has said the Island Development Plan is already 20 years out of date, despite only being published less than seven years ago.
A review into the planning policy framework for the island is currently under way.
Peter Falla, group director of PF+A Architecture, said that although the IDP was published in 2016, it had taken 10 years to write.
‘A lot has changed in that time, with Covid and supply problems, it’s out of date with the real world. The IDP can be thought of as a supertanker – it’s very hard to change its direction.’
Fellow architect Andrew Merrett, a director at Lovell Ozanne, echoed those sentiments with regard to the IDP’s review.
‘The plan won’t come out till 2025. It’s good to have a plan, but the plan is based on data that will be out of date when it’s published. Planning policy is the same all over the world, it’s immediately out of date and hard to update. Any policy needs to be flexible enough to adapt to the changing economy.’
Mr Merrett pointed to low-value consignment relief, the EU VAT avoidance scheme that many Channel Islands companies took advantage of until its cancellation in 2012, as an example of the inflexibility of the current island plan.
‘[George] Osborne [the UK chancellor at the time] changed the rules overnight, and that market disappeared, but the IDP allowed for its continued growth and the allowances for developing industrial land is still partly based on that.’
He added that the GP11 policy on social housing had not been successful.
‘We are one of the only practices that have built social houses outside the GHA but based on an earlier rural plan,’ he said.
‘The number of social dwellings included in GP11 seems a high percentage which puts developers off. No one is going to invest in a five-year development under those circumstances. Reducing to 10% would be a more equitable process.’
Director of architecture at BHP, Oliver Brock, thought the current IDP had been broadly successful, especially with regard to encouraging development within the main centres, and that the review should focus on encouraging efficient and centralised development within these areas.
‘This should include more development within the Town centre particularly, reducing car dependency and improving the efficiency of infrastructure services, as well as reducing any potential for development outside the main centres and local centres to protect and enhance the character of our rural landscape. Furthermore, an additional local centre should be established at Hautes Capelles.’
Mr Merrett said that the land made available for housing needed a root-and-branch review. He added that a revised IDP may see the boundaries of centres expanded, and would suggest using land reclamation for housing or moving businesses to these areas to free up land.
‘We need to ask how we house everyone. We will probably see higher density areas increase. There might be a shift to more multi-storey building and it’s interesting to see how that might be received.’
Mr Falla added that if he could change one thing in the review it would be around listed buildings.
‘They are a big “no-no” for developers. It’s a big area that needs to move into the real world. If you take on a listed building it will take two years to get anywhere. You have rattly windows you want to replace with double glazing but the planners would prefer the rotten ones because they tick a box. It goes against reality.’
