Forcing hotels to stay as such creates a false market

However, the facts are as follows:

The Royal, the Savoy, St Martin's Hotel, Vazon Bay, the Manor Hotel, Hotel de Beauvoir, the Albany Hotel, Camblez Hotel, La Quinta Hotel, Hotel les Carterets, all have something in common. All of them are hotels which have applied for change of use after they had been closed and/or were in a parlous condition. For some, it's taken very little time. For others, it's taken years.

These are establishments from every category/grade of tourism in Guernsey, all of which (with the exception of Green Acres at present) have secured permission for a change of use with the support of a very wealthy owner, be it an individual or a company.

The simple moral is, 'If you own a hotel and want change of use in Guernsey, the first step you must take is to close your doors'.

If you don't, the Commerce and Employment Department will fight you all the way, irrespective of whether your business is making a profit or not. Effectively, even if you are going bankrupt, Commerce and Employment will force you to stay in business in the tourist trade, or close.

The consequence of this is that a large number of tourist establishments in Guernsey have been running on an underfunded and marginally profitable basis for years. There are none of us who actually have the right to choose how we make a living. This is against our human rights.

Yes, there are a number of shining lights, which have had large sums of money spent on them in recent years. However, if one looks behind the front doors, one will find good reasons why. For example:

La Fregate is owned by a multimillion-pound trust in Jersey, which reinvested in the hotel after years of zero investment. They don't actually need the money.

The OGH was purchased at a knock-down price by a billion-dollar company with assets all over the world. The CEO in London has a particular affection for Guernsey. Millions have been spent on the OGH and it will take years to recover the investment.

The Duke of Richmond was purchased for about £2-2.5m. by a billion-dollar company with assets all over the world. Included in the price were two open market dwelling houses worth about a million each. So how much was the Duke? Millions have been spent on the refurbishment and it will take years to see a return.

St Pierre Park has been purchased for half its value by a billion-dollar company.

There are others, e.g. Fermain Valley.

In contrast: the Royal and Savoy have been turned into offices by multimillionaire owners.

Hotel les Carterets, the Manor, St Martin's Hotel and Hotel de Beauvoir are being or have been redeveloped by multimillion-pound companies or owners, having first fallen into a state of non-profit/disrepair.

Can we agree there has been a trend established? 'If it's closed down and you're wealthy enough, you will get permission to change its use.'

If you aren't in this lucky position, you will never get change of use from a Commerce and Employment Department which is determined, come what may and whatever the circumstances, to ensure your establishment stays in tourism and maintains the level of their bed bank. The bed bank is sacrosanct. Green Acres and the Idlerocks are still counted in the bed bank.

When challenged about this, a senior member of the tourist division told me, 'if we relax the rules, there will be a rush for the door'. This has been tourism's position for decades.

What does this tell you about C&E's private opinion of tourism in Guernsey?

First, they seriously believe the industry, in its current state, is in a parlous position. 'If we relax the rules, everyone will leave' (sic. there will be no one left in the tourist industry).

Secondly, clearly they have no idea about the industry at all. 'There will be a rush for the door'. An absurd statement, which, I repeat, has been their mantra for the last 20 years. Do they honestly believe the following will leave the tourist industry?

Red Carnation Hotels, Hand Picked Hotels, Sarnia Hotels, Bella Luce Hotel, Fermain Valley Hotel, Duke of Normandie Hotel and many others... both hotels and self-catering throughout the island.

So the reality is, C&E are not making an exception of Green Acres. They have adopted their 'Alamo' position on many occasions in the past and the only times they have conceded is when an establishment has been closed down and 'big money' has stepped in with a change of use application. As displayed already, this has happened time and again.

In Jersey, a decade ago, it was recognised the tourist bed bank could not be sustained. Many hotels were run down and losing money. The consequence was that establishments of all sorts and sizes opted to move out of the industry and were given change of use permission, without a battle from Jersey Tourism.

They converted into care homes, special needs homes, apartments and offices. 'Precedent' was an accepted legal position and the owners of struggling establishments were given the opportunity to avoid bankruptcy by moving out of tourism and into other, more profitable areas of trade.

Yes, the Jersey bed bank decreased to a more sustainable level. Since then, nearly £200m. has been introduced into the Jersey tourist industry in the form of new hotels and massive redevelopment of existing establishments.

The point is, Jersey relaxed their position on change of use for tourism and there wasn't 'a rush for the door'.

What happened was many establishments found a more profitable area in which to operate and the existing industry saw improved opportunities to make money. So there was massive reinvestment and the standard of tourism in Jersey improved immensely. They can now face a difficult world with confidence in their product.

In Guernsey, market economies are being controlled or interfered with. This should never happen. It never works. Just look at the mess the Common Agricultural Policy is and also the European Fishing Quota System... interference by governments in market economies only ever leads to an artificial, flawed environment which is ultimately destined to fail.

The community in Guernsey is and always must be our most fundamental and principal concern. Without consideration for, and a sense of community in the island, we may as well just 'turn the lights out'.

We would be far better off as a community in this island if we had a smaller, thriving tourism industry with happy/willing stakeholders and in addition, as a consequence of change of use, a thriving old-age support industry – owned and operated efficiently by the private sector. We owe it to our community.

For far too long, care for our increasingly ageing community has been the elephant in the (States) room.

Care for our aged and specialist care for our infirm is desperately needed and frankly, it's really quite shameful it has been ignored for so long.

Name and address withheld.

Editor's footnote: A spokesman for the Commerce and Employment Department responds: 'The Commerce and Employment Department is grateful for the opportunity to respond to your correspondent's letter, as it is necessary to clarify the department's role in the planning process.

Commerce and Employment is responsible for promoting the interests of all sectors of the economy, including the visitor economy, but the department has no power to grant or refuse planning permission for any type of planning application, including those seeking to convert visitor accommodation into other, non-tourism uses. This is the role and responsibility of the Environment Department.

Your correspondent's letter also refers to a specific hotel, which the department understands is now subject to a "live" planning application. As the department's views may be formally sought by the Environment Department, it would not be appropriate for Commerce and Employment to comment on this specific hotel.

Commenting more broadly, however, the Commerce and Employment Department would like to reiterate its commitment to creating the conditions for a successful visitor economy, to which visitor accommodation clearly makes an essential contribution.'