More time needed to examine responses to IDP review, says DPA
Planners are applying for more time to examine responses to the Island Development Plan review, after significant issues were raised about the deliverability of some of the key housing sites.
The Development & Planning Authority is currently reviewing more than 270 responses from over 500 individuals. It had been due to respond to all the responses last week, ready for the second round of consultation to open on Monday.
But the DPA has confirmed the timeline has slipped and it was not clear at this stage how much extra time the authority would need.
‘We of course still intend to complete this work as quickly as possible and are looking now at exactly how much more time is needed, and we’ll update on that as soon as possible after further liaison with the inspector and officers,’ said DPA president Victoria Oliver yesterday.
‘But more importantly, this should not delay any immediate developments that are taking place now, or are about to take place, as other existing policies support housing development to come forward. The review is about ensuring future land supply for the next five year period and ensuring the right changes are made to the IDP.’
It is unclear how big an impact the delay could cause to the review. After the second consultation, all responses will need to go to the inspector, before hearings can take place starting in October
In late July, the DPA refused to extend the deadline for initial representations, despite calls for more time from deputies and industry.
In defence of the extension request yesterday, the DPA said in a statement said that the representations received had indicated strongly divergent views.
‘As an example, the authority has been asked to both increase and decrease the applied buffers in the States Strategic Housing Indicator, which is key to establishing how much land is required,’ the committee stated.
‘In addition, significant new matters have been raised about the deliverability of some of the key sites allocated for housing.
Removing such sites from the proposed land supply would have significant implications on how many houses could be delivered and any alternative options to cover for such loss need to be considered carefully given the strong and well-argued concerns about allocation of greenfield sites.’
There have also been proposals to amend key industrial areas as a way to compensate for some of the potential loss of proposed housing sites.
‘It would not be possible for the authority to consider such significant proposals without further thorough assessment.
‘The authority is committed to considering fully the feedback from the community and mindful that some of the representations could lead to substantial changes to the IDP Review.
‘With this in mind we have written to the inspector and are working with the inquiry team to establish the next steps.’
The authority will be meeting next week to consider how much extra time it requires.
