Planners fail to stop developers from going against spirit of law

Nobody is infallible, not even the States members who constructed planning regulations or their highly qualified advisors in the Planning Department (or IDC or whatever other iterations that committee has gone through) who helped them formulate the regulations (eg, the UAP, RAP, IDP). There are well-documented cases where a coach-and-horses were driven through planning regulations because the written word cannot cover all eventualities, even though the spirit and purpose of the regulations had been clearly and unambiguously spelt out in the preamble to the regulations. This enabled developers to squirm through gaps which they had engineered in the plan. They stayed within the written regulations but contravened the spirit of the regulations, which were meant to protect the countryside from unnecessary development.

The professional planners have never seemed to see this, in one case actually advising the developer what he should do to maximise his application’s chance of success even though it was going precisely against the spirit and purpose of the plan – the protection of the countryside. The application was rejected twice by the political board, who could see this, but eventually allowed at appeal by an off-island retired planning inspector who, like the local planners, was not interested in the bigger picture but only in the wording of the regulations. Had the Cobo application been rejected by the political board at a public meeting, I, like Deputy Gollop, am sure that the decision would have been appealed (after all, the developer had nothing to lose except a bit more money) and, like the appeal above, it would have been allowed by the Planning Appeals Tribunal even though it contravened the spirit and the purposes of the planning regulations.

That raises another point. What has happened to the panel chaired by Advocate Peter Harwood, which was set up in March last year to review ‘independent bodies’ set up by the States but which operate at ‘arm’s length’ from government? It was suggested by the Press at the time that the decision by the Planning Appeals Tribunal in the matter of the development at Les Blanches in St Martin’s could have been one reason for the review taking place, the planning application twice being rejected by the Board of the Development and Planning Authority, only for the non-elected Appeals Tribunal to allow it.

TONY LEE

Les Salines,

Le Vallon,

St Martin’s,

Guernsey,

GY4 6DN.

Editor’s footnote: a spokesperson from the Development and Planning Authority replies:

Your correspondent’s letter is primarily about historic planning decisions relating to a proposal for residential development at Les Blanches, St Martin’s, which is adjacent to the Manor Stores.

Two planning applications for this proposed development were considered. The first, which was determined by the Board of the former Environment Department in 2015, was for 37 homes on the site. The second, dealt with by the Development and Planning Authority in 2016, was for 26 new homes. Both applications were refused. Both proposals included a new access road serving Manor Stores.

The second decision, that of the DPA, was appealed and the appeal was upheld by the independent tribunal. Contrary to your correspondent’s assertion, this decision was not made by an ‘off-island retired planning inspector’, but by the two local lay members of the Tribunal. Crucially, the appeal decision removed the access from Manor Stores, due to the Tribunal’s concerns regarding traffic and road safety.

Regarding the issue of development of a greenfield site, and your correspondent’s claims that developers are able to ‘squirm though gaps’ in regulations and that appeal decisions for Les Blanches and, hypothetically, Cobo ‘contravened the spirit and purposes of the planning regulations’, this is fundamentally incorrect.

The planning applications for Les Blanches were submitted and considered on the basis of Policy RH2 of the former Rural Area Plan, which was later superseded by the Island Development Plan (IDP). Policy RH2 was designed to permit, in exceptional circumstances, the development of social housing on suitable sites within the Rural Area. As was found by the Tribunal at appeal, the second of the two proposals complied with Policy RH2 and was therefore approved subject to conditions, including deletion of the proposed Manor Stores access road. The approach of Policy RH2 has not been continued in the IDP which instead includes the requirement for larger housing developments to contribute a proportion of affordable housing. Should the approved development at Les Blanches not proceed, the site cannot be developed for housing under the policies of the IDP.

Regarding the Cobo site, the proposals to erect a replacement house and to extend its curtilage entirely satisfied the relevant policies of the IDP. Had permission been refused for political not planning reasons, such a decision would surely have been overturned on appeal. This would not have ‘contravened the spirit and purposes of the planning regulations’ but would have been the proper and expected outcome of a fair and consistent planning process.

The current system of planning appeals in Guernsey was introduced in 2009 on the basis of legislation which was approved by the States. It is generally regarded as a very successful approach which balances professional expert advice with local lay representation and opinion. So much so that other jurisdictions which still retain the old and expensive legalistic system of planning appeals through the Courts are looking to the Guernsey system as an exemplar of best practice.