Development plan a tough balancing act for planners

Creating a plan to guide how the island develops is always a balancing act.

It is something that is intrinsically full of tensions – and the proposed new Island Development Plan is no different.

There are those who want to build, those who want to build but only in the urban areas, those who feel the rural parishes need to take more of the burden, those who want more protection for the environment, those who feel the plan should inhibit, those who think it should enable.

While the planners try to keep things at broader policy levels, for homeowners and businesses it often becomes all about how things will impact on them and what they want to do.

It is not as simple as in the old days, what colour the square your property is in dictating what you can do.

Now you have to read through policies and see if you can jump through each hoop.

The plan will never be all things to all people.

Take its stance on parking, one of those areas that will generate some heat. The proposal going to the States will introduce maximum parking requirements for the first time, one private space per property in urban developments plus a communal space.

To those who rally against anything that interferes with car ownership, and there is a strong lobby as we know from the transport strategy, this is anathema.

But for those – there are many – who think the island is too reliant on the car, this is finally a chance to apply a little pressure and create behavioural change.

For their part, the planning inspectors have backed the proposal – now it is up to the States to have the final say.

The IDP is a vast document and within it are changes which will dictate how the island grows over the next decade.

Does it solve the riddles that have become dominant in the last few years?

We will no doubt hear much more about the test for hotels to leave the industry, for instance. Again, this is another area of tension – owners who see more money to be made in residential or specialist care facilities against the need to protect what is left of Guernsey's bedstock to maintain a tourist industry.

Redundant greenhouse sites are another age-old favourite. There has always been an understandable reluctance to reward those who abandon their sites to dereliction, but it is a stance which leaves eyesores which no one wants.

These areas are meant to return to agricultural land, but the cost of clearance is often cited by those responsible for it.

And some see opportunity – land that could be used for light industry, say, or, whisper it, more housing.

Protect this as open space – perhaps by providing a States grant scheme to help with clearance or even provide labour – or fill it up with private enterprise, another philosophical fight?

The plan can go only so far in offering incentives.

It can create an avenue for development, but not the funding or other incentives – that is a conundrum for other areas of the States and the private sector as a whole to solve.

The planning inspectors believe what is on the table goes as far as it can with redundant greenhouses, with a few tweaks for renewable energy infrastructure.

What is needed, if the States believes this is a big enough problem, is for the key departments involved to get together to come up with a package which helps solve the issue, not simply rely as they have in the past on the planners to find the magic bullet and shout at them when it does not hit the target.

You can see a role for Economic Development and Policy & Resources in this puzzle, let's just hope they can all co-operate better with the Development & Planning Authority than happened with getting sight of the planning inspectors' report.

The process for drawing up the IDP is designed to let everyone have their voice heard.

The public and businesses get their chance during the planning inquiry to put forward their views, but with such a policy-heavy document it is always tricky to get the engagement.

Now anyone with grievances can lobby their deputies and this is when the plan faces its biggest test. No longer are we in the hands of dispassionate planning professionals. Politicians, often so keen to please the majority, have the final say.

This gives campaigners against development at Delancey, as a prime example, much more hope of persuasion than they ever really had through the process so far.

Politicians have a habit of homing in on pet projects at this point, which can undermine the bigger picture of the plan, and also an understandable desire to protect their district's interests.

The IDP needs to be tested and challenged through debate to ensure it is a robust solution and, more importantly, one which has ownership and clear responsibility.

It also needs to be adaptable as Guernsey's needs change, something recognised by the D&PA's intention to review the plan after five years.

Too often in the past it has been the inflexibility of the planning system and unwillingness to countenance change which so infuriates.

Equally, people need to remember it is the planning policies and not the planners themselves that will be at the heart of why they cannot do what they want to.

That is why it is so important to engage in this process.