Let’s reflect on Grande Mare outcome

The reason was the 18 months it took to get permission to go ahead with a multi-million pound investment in Guernsey’s visitor economy and create a much-needed reason for people to visit.

The Development & Planning Authority would argue, not unreasonably, that the nature of the development and the sensitivity of the site – no fewer than 10 expert bodies were consulted over the application – demanded time be taken to get it right.

So permission being granted is something to celebrate but it’s also an opportunity to reflect on the efficiency of the planning process itself. After all, being granted the go-ahead comes with 25 separate conditions, each one of which is administratively demanding. Reports on bats, bicycles, drainage, even floor levels are all demanded before much can happen. All part of today’s price for ensuring that development is as sustainable and unobtrusive as possible.

But who monitors whether the restrictions are proportionate and reasonably applied? This may not apply to La Grande Mare – although Mr Lansdown and his co-investors may have a different view – but for a States famously wedded to learning lessons, where’s the review of planning processes or a post-implementation wash-up?

Planning here is either/or – applicants receive the nod or they don’t. End of. Yet the ability to invest in and enhance the commercial use of property is vital for the island and its economy, but the last independent review of the adequacy of the planning service was the Shepley Report in 2008.

Progress against the recommendations has been made, confirmed by Scrutiny in 2012, which increased the openness and transparency of the service, and recently there has been much support for initiatives being pursued by the DPA.

Nevertheless, the time La Grande Mare has taken to reach approval stage and the cliff-edge nature of it should provide a pause for reflection.

How efficient is Guernsey’s planning service and how can it be improved?