Without protections, ‘Area of Biodiversity Importance’ labels are meaningless
FOLLOWING on from Helen Hunter’s letter ‘Rare green spaces in built-up north should be protected’ (Open Lines, 14 June) regarding Water’s Rocque, an ‘Area of Biodiversity Importance’ which is currently being sold by the States with ‘potential for development....’
It is interesting to compare past protection offered to such areas (then called SNCIs – Sites of Nature Conservation) in Guernsey’s previous plan – the Urban Area Plan (UAP) – which was superseded by the current Island Development Plan (IDP) in autumn 2016:
The UAP policy quoted ‘Development that would adversely affect SNCIs will not normally be permitted and will only be permitted where benefits to the community clearly outweigh the nature conservation value...’
In comparison, the newer IDP policy starts ‘development within an ABI will be supported...’ How can these rules change? Surely an area is either important to the island or it is not?
As reported in the media, a habitat survey is being carried out all over the island this spring/summer. We are told that the survey has been designed to tell us whether our fields, woodlands or cliffs are changing and which habitats we need to protect the most. I don’t believe these results are yet available – without knowing the nature conservation value of this land, how can it be sold for ‘potential development’?
Will this set a precedent for all ABIs across the island, or are the unlucky ones in St Peter Port and the north less important because these ‘main centres’ are the ones targeted by the IDP? I agree with Mrs Hunter – if anything, these have more value as they are scarce and in danger of becoming extinct in a very built-up part of Guernsey.
In the old UAP, biodiversity was described as being ‘invaluable both in economic terms and in terms of the enjoyment and health of the community and visitors to the island’. I’d like to think that this is still important and therefore ask that with the newly reduced annual housing target of 127 in mind, perhaps we, the northern community, could be afforded some green space for our ‘enjoyment and health’ too?
As pointed out by Deputy Laurie Queripel in the GP on 14 June, the IDP concentrates development within the urban areas. I’m happy to see that he and other deputies want to tackle this issue. I’m sure that Guernsey is not so short of land that we have to resort to contradicting ourselves by building on areas of biodiversity importance. For the sake of plant life, animal life and human life, please give back the protection that has been taken away from these important green areas – at the moment, all they have is a label with no meaning.
SARAH WYATT,
The Cottage,
Robergerie Lane,
St Sampson’s.
