Vinery sites will be left to deteriorate as result of 'investment' criterion
I AM writing in response to an article that appeared in the Press on 14 February, regarding the search for suitable sites for relocating existing tenants of La Fontaine Vinery. One of the reasons stated for considering the two main alternative sites at Extension Vinery and Pulias Vinery, both currently classified as agricultural land, was that both sites would require 'significant investment' to restore them to working use. Since when has that been a criterion for granting planning permission? If a property of any description has been purchased within, say, the last five years, it is reasonable to assume that the purchase price would have reflected the condition of the property, be it a dwelling, agricultural field or vinery.
I can summon up very little sympathy for any future expenditure the purchaser might incur to bring that investment up to scratch, especially as, in the case of derelict vineries, one can be fairly certain that any recent purchase would not have been made with the intention of the new owner taking up a career in growing.
Surely, if received wisdom is that the Planning Department take into account the condition of a property when deliberating on whether or not to grant a planning application this will encourage more people to leave old greenhouses to deteriorate to the point where they become eyesores for other islanders and visitors to endure. Rather, there should be a financial disincentive for anyone guilty of poor stewardship of our island's rapidly diminishing agricultural heritage.
Name and address withheld.
