The dawning of a new direction for the island, by Nick Mann

SHOULD we knock down houses that are lining Guernsey's roads to open up more space?

How about forcing developers to build a percentage of 'affordable' housing on sizeable new building projects?

Fed up with the eyesore of derelict greenhouse sites? How about letting them become allotments instead? Or using them for small-scale business?

Options, options, options.

All choices put on the table by Environment at its latest attempt to engage people in how the island should be shaped in the future.

This is, perhaps, the one opportunity in a decade that people have to inject the common sense element into planning.

It will set out the terms with which all future applications are judged until the next review – there is little point moaning about it after the event.

Still to come will be the public planning inquiry in autumn 2014, and the States debate the following year, but often that is too late to really influence thinking.

It is best to get in on the ground floor before these options become proposed policies.

And it really does represent a leap in how government thinks about planning, one that will impact on thousands of people – especially those who live in and around the main and local centres that are being proposed.

Remember these are not firm proposals, but one radical idea centres on demolishing some ribbon development along roads and building it elsewhere – the theory behind it is how development has happened along the roads, giving the impression of overdevelopment.

New housing development of a certain size could be required to provide outdoor play space, or areas where there is a lack of recreational space could be identified.

Could more be done to encourage allotments by allowing the use of former vinery sites and permitting buildings such as sheds to be built on them?

What should happen with the 90-plus sites identified as conservation areas where stricter planning rules apply?

Should this continue? Should there be fewer, but bigger ones?

There are currently 253 redundant vinery sites – what should happen to them?

The consultation lists four options. They could be agricultural land or open land. Those near identified centres could be used for mixed development, those outside in exceptional cases for small-scale business development.

Environment is also considering using planning to force developers to provide a certain percentage of affordable housing within new developments – or earmarking sites that can be used for affordable housing only.

It is a far-reaching proposal for a marked problem – added to by the fact that the number of units being built is falling woefully short of what has been identified as needed.

It is also a proposal that should engage plenty of debate from different sections of society – well, it will if people realise what is happening.

Yesterday also marked the official launch of the department's 'call for sites' where people can come forward with ideas for what they want to do with their land.

It is just a shame that the information on the States website was so woeful in promoting all of this on the day of the launch.

Also, throughout the consultation document people are sent away to find information online but with no direct links.

It is a mark that there is still much more for the States to do when it tries to engage with the public.

Counter to that is the series of roadshows being put on by the department, when it will be speaking face to face with those who are interested.

People can get turned off by planning, usually because the language of planners is not something it is easy to cut through.

It may have been somewhat a haphazard start, but this consultation marks the dawning of a new direction for the island – how it will look, the services it provides and where it provides them.

People are quick to complain about the lack of common sense involved in the current planning policies – this is the chance for the public to end that and for the department to show it's listening.