It is not for political members of DPA to ‘trump policy’

He indicates that other politicians want a ‘more proactive committee that was not afraid to trump policy’.

Unfortunately like the Environment Department and the IDC before it, the DPA is an easy target for criticism.

With no disrespect to John, the DPA has the job of implementing and following the terms of the Island Development Plan. The IDP is the key document in the consideration of any planning application along with overriding States policies and sets out in detail the relevant policy considerations and the context. It is these policies together with the overriding aims and objectives of the law and general planning considerations that the DPA must consider in deciding an application. It is not for either the planning officer or the political members of the DPA to ‘trump policy’.

Comments along these lines show a fundamental misunderstanding of how planning functions. I know that John clearly understands his role having seen him in action at many open planning meetings. Unfortunately though, I have also witnessed deputies in open planning meetings making incorrect assertions in summing up which have no relevance in planning terms.

To make a decision which is in obvious contravention of policy will without doubt lead to an appeal or judicial review and most likely see the original decision overturned. This will be a high risk if deputies are prepared to trump policy.

Deputies who are looking for change need to remember that their route to change is in their hands. They voted for the IDP; they have the ability to change its provisions by way of requete now or take issue with things as part of the annual monitoring survey that the DPA carry out.

I, like the next Guernseyman, do not want to see unnecessary incursions into our green fields but if we have to, due to housing need, then policy is right that the first sites to be considered would be within the main or local centres and not elsewhere. All States members would have been aware of this when they approved the IDP. Unfortunately, whether in the countryside or not, we have also not really tackled the problem of derelict vineries. Incentives need to be offered to encourage owners to turn them back to green fields which can contribute to our open land bank.

In relation to open planning meetings, the aim has always been to enable the public to see the decision-making process transparently and to be able to have their say and see justice done. That is hugely beneficial when you have a controversial site such as Les Blanches, Stratheden Vinery or Greenacres. However that benefit soon becomes of less consequence when:

1. if the DPA decide to hold a site meeting, as is often necessary, they return and make the decision in private with no representors present;

2. deputies make comments which clearly show that they do not necessarily accept the advice of the professional planner on some aspect of policy and therefore are prepared to ignore policy;

3. they are often dealing with complex points of policy which, with no disrespect to them, would be better dealt with by, perhaps, a professional independent planning expert sitting in determination with the deputies;

4. all representors are limited to a four-minute speech, which does on occasion stunt development of argument.

Of course these open meetings can be quite well attended and tempers can be raised. In the early days, they were, on occasion, unruly. However in more recent times, John has controlled them and they have remained formal and appropriate.

Whilst the sheer number of objectors is not a relevant planning consideration that the DPA can take into account, it must be impossible for a deputy not to take notice of the wealth of feeling of opposition.

The way forward must be for a review of how well the DPA consider that open meetings are working and with clear guidance as to which applications will go to an open meeting. As at now, that decision is too opaque. For what it’s worth, any deputy sitting needs more guidance than the current system allows. The professional planners do well to advise the deputies, but the involvement of a professional independent planner sitting in determination with the deputies would avoid some of the problems and would ensure that policy implications are grasped and followed every time.

The problem will always be that, until the States are satisfied with the implications of the IDP and its flexibility, there will continue to be moans and groans despite the fact that they debated it and voted for it. If they are really not happy with it, they need to deal with it, as it is in their power to do so.

ADVOCATE JASON GREEN

Collas Crill.