Forest West proposal: Parish has been unfairly treated in Island Development Plan

On Tuesday 10 November 2015 the IDP public inquiry dealt with the six Local Centres in the Draft Plan, which included Le Bourg, Forest, in matters of principle and boundary changes. There was some talk of boundary extensions towards the west by two participants who have vineries in the new proposed centre but no new centre was on the original plan. Environment representatives argued against any extension from Le Bourg west.

At a later date somewhere, someone put a circle with a pencil around the area west. The Environment and independent inspectors changed their stance on this at a later time and made the circle smaller, now naming it the new Local Centre West. This was not brought back to the table, nor was the Forest douzaine informed so we could call a Forest parish meeting.

Not until the IDP was released on 1 August 2016 to the media did anyone, including the Forest, know of this development. Complete secrecy from the behind-closed-door discussions of the planners and independent inspectors? The online representations and information were taken down because of the cost of the licence so could not be viewed by anyone.

A meeting with Development & Planning Authority president John Gollop and a planning officer was asked for. This proved difficult at first but was granted after persistence from the Forest douzaine. John Gollop was not part of the meeting as a planner said 'he does not meet with douzaines in the matter of IDP' but said the douzaines should 'lobby their deputies with their opinions'.

The meeting with a planner was useful to some extent but we were not told what development would be allowed apart from limited infill, although I believe John Gollop had said to one of the TV stations that Forest parish will change dramatically over the next 10 years.

So at the douzaine meeting on 26 September a letter was put together by the constables and members and emailed to all 35 deputies with the best, although limited, information allowed to us.

More information has come to light after the letter was sent to deputies.

It appears interested parties had been looking into the Local Centre West's development potential prior to or at the same time as the 10 November planning inquiry.

Deputies David De Lisle and Paul Le Pelley's amendment not to have the Local Centre West in the IDP was placed at the States Assembly meeting of 12 October 2016.

Forest parish had been warned the northern and Town parishioners have been waiting a long time to take retribution on the western parishes.

It was no surprise to the Forest that anger and frustration of all those years of dumping buildings in their backyard was taken out on us. I can understand that feeling and why it was done but believe we were not guilty and falsely charged.

At least the amendment by Deputy Andrea Dudley-Owen, taking out the Forest School playing field as possible development, was passed.

It is common knowledge the Forest School remains under threat of closure and was this the reason why?

To put the record straight, the Forest is the only one of the western parishes that could take a large amount of the possible 20 per cent, but most properly 35 per cent, of the proposed development in the rural parishes. We now have two large centres which account for a large area of the parish, with little space between and not much green left, and we may in the future be called a small town.

We have always taken our fair share of housing and commercial buildings but what has been done with this extra centre is wrong.

Forest has already taken, with St Sampson's, one-third of the housing in the last 15 years.

If the airport (600 vergees) is taken out, the parish has only one-third open land left.

Factor in the associated businesses, a busy airport, the three garages/car sales, showrooms, two large and one small retail shops, two schools, two large boarding hotels, five pubs/restaurants, a cinema complex, chip shop and numerous small businesses. Then add the main road from west to south used by the western parishes and a large section of the island.

What you have is a very busy, heavily populated small rural parish, although it calms down after 7pm, when most of the people who use the roads go home.

I believe the Forest, with all the things imposed without any consultation since 10 November 2015, has not been fairly treated.

Deputy De Lisle has asked for a public hearing and this should be granted.

Do we need 3,000 houses over the next 10 years when the population is going down and there are empty houses and numerous target housing areas not built on?

The plan also appears to give even more power to civil servants, and more to the developers, but has not addressed the question of its part in stopping so many people leaving this island.

So many, especially young people, are leaving as they have no chance or choice of owning a house in Guernsey. Their aspirations have been kicked into touch because this plan is only for the wealthy with time and money and who can afford to wait.

The limited choices are to buy from large developers, estate agents or from the GHA if you are lower income – not the redundant buildings, because of the inflexibility of planners, not the self-build plots, not the small builders or the infill sites.

Some of these sites could, with the help of douzaines, be found and identified for possible use.

It could help stop some of the exodus of our youngsters who feel abandoned by our States policies.

davidgorvel@yahoo.co.uk