IDP is ‘an unwieldy monster that needs to be tamed...’

I have several concerns about the policies within the IDP, and also about some of the procedures involved, due to the fact that, in my view, they’re not working to the benefit of our community. They are as follows:

Seeing as not one single unit of ‘affordable housing’ has been provided for islanders under policy GP11 since the IDP was implemented in November 2016, I think the threshold should be reduced from the current 20 units to 10.

I don’t think any future development should be allowed in a green field unless it’s going to provide a social benefit for our community: e.g. a care home is built in that field.

The irony is that we have a Spatial Policy in place which states that ‘green spaces’ in built up areas are absolutely vital for the wellbeing of residents in the area, yet the policies allow for development in those ‘green spaces’. Like a lot of things in politics, that makes no sense to me at all. On that note, there have been several permissions granted recently under the current policies for the category for agricultural land to be changed to the domestic curtilage category, which in some instances has resulted in the loss of green fields. That also concerns me. To state the obvious, once green fields are gone they’re gone. Hence my concern.

I don’t think any additional development should be permitted in a ruette tranquille. The reason I say that is because, by their very definition, they are deemed to be areas of tranquillity.

To state the obvious once again, if additional development is permitted, then they will no longer be areas of tranquillity due to an increase in traffic, additional infrastructure, additional activity in the area etc., etc., etc.

Development and Planning Authority staff spend months drawing up Development Frameworks for areas of land and sites all over the island.

These Development Frameworks are merely ‘suggestions’ as to what a developer could/might consider when drawing up their own plans for a site. In other words, DFs are nothing but pure speculation. The developer may or may not take such ‘suggestions’ on board. They could simply ignore them completely and submit their own plans for a site and as long as their plans comply with the policies of the IDP, then they have every chance of being accepted and supported. Therefore, I don’t think taxpayers’ money and DPA staff time should continue to be wasted on drawing up DFs. Every developer/islander already knows exactly what they can or can’t do with a site. All they have to do is read the IDP. If they can’t be bothered/haven’t got the time to do that, then all they need to do is call the planning officers on 717200 to ask what they can or can’t do. What could be simpler? So why waste taxpayers’ money and staff time drawing up Development Frameworks which simply mirror and duplicate all that we’re told in the IDP? Once again, like a lot of things in politics, that makes no sense to me at all.

Addressing and amending all of my concerns should be a simple procedure: however, seeing as ‘red tape’ and bureaucracy now rule the world (our planning laws have now well and truly become embroiled in ‘red tape’ and bureaucracy) and common sense and logic have been well and truly thrown out of the window, it’s going to be exactly the opposite. An evidence-based business case will need to be presented to the States. Every i will need to be dotted and every t will need to be crossed. Why do I say that? Well any deputy who wants to lay a Requete before the States which seeks to amend policies and procedures relating to the IDP will need to take into consideration the following:

First of all that the Island Development Plan is underpinned by the Strategic Land Use Plan. Therefore, any deputy who seeks to amend policies within the IDP will need to take into consideration what amendments will also need to be made to the SLUP (deputies have been told on several occasions that those amendments could cost the taxpayer several hundreds of thousands of pounds and will take up valuable staff resources for a considerable amount of time).

Once deputies have successfully negotiated that hurdle, they will then have to take into consideration the numerous policies and procedures already in place that relate to the SLUP and the IDP in tandem, such as:

n The Spatial Policy.

n The Exemptions to the Spatial Policy Policy.

n Policy Gateways.

n The Redundant Glasshouse Sites Policy.

n The policy which applies to the Harbour Action Area.

n The policy which applies to Regeneration Areas.

n The policy which determines and dictates development in Main Centre and Main Centre Outer Areas.

n The policy which determines and dictates development in Local Centre Areas.

n The policy which determines and dictates Development of Strategic Importance.

n The policy which determines and dictates Strategic Opportunity Sites.

n The policy which determines and dictates ‘windfall’ sites.

n The policy which determines and dictates Affordable Housing.

n The policy which determines and dictates Important Open Land.

n The policy which determines and dictates Areas of Biodiversity Importance.

n The policy which determines and dictates Conservation Areas.

n The policy which determines and seeks to protect Safeguarded Areas.

n The policy which determines and seeks to protect Protected Buildings.

n The policy which determines and seeks to protect Protected Monuments.

n The policy which determines and seeks to protect Archaeological Remains.

They will also need to take into consideration:

n The procedure that deals with Impact Assessments on Traffic.

n The procedure that deals with Impact Assessments on the Environment.

n The procedure that deals with the aforementioned Development Frameworks, which once approved by the Development and Planning Authority become Statutory Planning Guidance.

n Local Planning Briefs will also need to be taken into consideration.

There are even more to consider (all of which can be found within the 372 pages of the IDP) but I’m conscious that your readers may have ‘lost the will to live’ by now, so I’ll leave it at that.

All of the above of course could be taken into consideration during the five-year review of the IDP in 2021. But, due to the fact that they might not be, I think we need to be a lot more proactive than that and act now.

Having read all of the above, I’m sure your readers will now understand why I said at the beginning of my letter that I think the IDP is ‘an unwieldy monster that needs to be tamed and brought into line’. I also hope they very much appreciate that trying to amend anything to do with planning issues is an extremely complex affair. However, having said that, ‘where there is a will there is a way’ as the old saying goes. Therefore, I would very much like to assure your readers that I’m not the only deputy who wants to see amendments made to the IDP.

Several of us have been working on a Requete for some time now and we will submit it as soon as we possibly can.

In closing, I would like to point out that it’s not the staff within the Development and Planning Authority who dictate the IDP policies. They simply do whatever the States asks them to do. The reality is that it’s the deputies, and the deputies alone, who determine and dictate policy. Therefore, it’s the responsibility of deputies to seek to change policy if they feel a particular policy isn’t benefitting the community.

I hope that at least some of what I have said in this letter provides comfort for islanders who also want to see amendments made to the IDP.

DEPUTY LESTER QUERIPEL

ADDRESS WITHHELD.