Why worries about overdevelopment should be heeded

A perception not shared by Deputy Barry Brehaut, president of Environment & Infrastructure, who, in the Guernsey Press of 10 September, stated that of those homes in the pipeline, 45% are in the north and 31% are in St Peter Port. However, if Deputy Brehaut needs reminding that St Peter Port is divided into north and south, being himself a representative for the latter, then he has lost his sense of both geographical and political direction. A logical partition between northern and southern parts of the island would be a horizontal line drawn straight across the map of Guernsey from White Rock roundabout to the southern tip of Lihou.

What this reveals is that ‘the north’, with half of St Peter Port included, is actually only 44% of the island’s land area (even less if the combined open areas around L’Ancresse Common and La Grande Mare are excluded) into which it is intended to put what amounts to 60% of the planned development.

This is in stark contrast to ‘the south’, where a mere 25% of all development, as admitted by Deputy Brehaut, whose concept of 100% is also suspect, will be distributed throughout what is virtually 50% of Guernsey’s total land area (the balance of 6% being his own constituency of the southern half of St Peter Port).

So, expressed as a ratio of the percentage of total island development to the percentage of surface area, the north is expected to tolerate 6:4 while the south has less than 3:5.

As a somewhat more thoroughly researched (some might prefer the word ‘honest’) interpretation of the original data, this could indeed be said to support the perception of overdevelopment.

Within 18 consecutive editions of the Guernsey Press up to 1 September, there were a total of 22 articles, letters or editorial comments criticising the Island Development Plan and/or the Development & Planning Authority.

Yet, despite this very public outpouring of discontent, the DPA president maintained there was no evidence to show that the Island Development Plan needed changing, stating that the days when politicians could reflect the parochial view, based on responses, is no more as we are now in a situation where planning has been de-politicised.

Again this might be more honestly expressed as ‘the public have been disenfranchised’ and since a DPA spokesperson referred, during a radio breakfast broadcast, to those seeking development permission as ‘customers’, there is even an implied antipathy towards anyone questioning such development. An exemplar of which is the following edited quote from a deputy requesting information on behalf of parishioners:

‘I contacted Director of Planning... I took (a response) in good faith that there was no further information available. I now know from the file at Frossard House that what I would regard as quite detailed exchanges were taking place as early as... I will be taking this up as a separate matter with the officer as I feel that I have been misled.’

Such cavalier attitudes in handling data, public concern and enquiries can only be regarded as the innate tendency on the part of policymakers to become locked, by strategic misrepresentation, into fixed ideas at an early stage, as is expressed in a classic paper, Survival of the Unfittest by the economic geographer Professor Bent Flyvbjerg of Oxford University. George Monbiot, in referring to the latter, states: ‘The schemes that look best on paper and therefore are most likely to be adopted are those that have been scrutinised the least. Democratic debate would reveal their flaws... To the megalomaniacs who draw lines on maps, public opinion is like landscape features: it must be cleared out of the way.’

Put simply, advisors become advocates and advocates, becoming inextricably tied to their fostered schemes, promote them as suitable for adoption.

In the Press of 20 August, the Vale senior constable said that many islanders had not realised the effect that the changes of the Island Development Plan would have and the general public ignored it, but now it’s coming back to bite them.

Perhaps now, with the certainty of island-wide voting in mind, ignoring the general public during the ‘motion to debate’ might well ensure that those changes come back to bite the deputies instead.

D. LANE,

Les Amballes,

St Peter Port,

GY1 1WU.