Pace of IDP change a flashpoint

But the statement is the easy bit, the how is what matters.

There has been a subtle shift in the language and positioning of the committee recently as public anger has grown with the feeling that the wrong developments were being targeted at the wrong areas without adequate infrastructure being in place and with valuable open land being threatened.

It was only in October that the then president was standing in front of the States saying that the figures did not support concerns that the north was being overdeveloped, which goes to show that raw figures can really only take you so far.

Other deputies have acknowledged that the Island Development Plan they passed was having consequences they did not envisage and needed to be revisited. Planning had been deaf to that clamour, standing aloof.

That impression needs to be shed, whether it is through being forced into action or taking control of the situation by itself, it needs to be open to the debate and discussion it has so far dismissed.

It is not just the public that has lost confidence, but clearly given the unprecedented 18 spoilt papers in the uncontested presidential election, other politicians have too. Deputy Tindall has argued that was a statement being made about policies, but if it was that simple members could have waited until debate on the Merrett-led requete.

DPA is viewed as too secretive and its reluctance to bring contentious decisions to open planning meetings despite having that power reinforces this. Those decisions being made and explained in public was once seen as a vital part of the process.

While DPA is now listening and keen to communicate, the pace of change may well be where it finds itself clashing with other deputies and the public. Many want to see this Assembly take control of the IDP’s direction - currently DPA is working around the inbuilt five year review scheduled for November 2021 instead.

Showing flexibility and a willingness to change will be one way of turning things around.