Radical idea or old hat?

Every examination of land use planning by the States has started with considerable excitement over tackling derelict greenhouse sites. And ends with the realisation that they are far down the pecking order in overall land use policies.

So is the idea of ripping them up for housing a ‘radical’ concept, or merely ‘old hat’, re-treading old ideas?

The idea pre-dates the collapse of the horticulture industry in the late 1970s and early 80s but for a long while has got the owners of those sites, and those who care about the blot on the landscape that they create, absolutely nowhere. And some of them have tried, tried very hard. It used to be called a lottery on the premium of dereliction, and some growers were lucky winners. Many were not.

A States report on the use of redundant glasshouse sites from 2014 recognised the scale of the problem, but didn’t appear to have any particular ideas to resolve it.

More than 250 redundant sites, which would cost some £10,000 (at 2014 prices) a vergee to clear, almost all of which would be allowed only to return to agricultural land if cleared. A handful would fall into a ‘local centre’ where planning opportunities might be more generous.

There are obvious opportunities in sourcing land to build the 300-plus new homes needed every year to satisfy States ‘targets’.

But is there the drive or desire to make this an option? All the historic arguments will tell us that unless the States truly embrace a new radicalism, this is an idea which won’t fly.