Third party right of appeal against planning decisions needs to happen
WHEN the accused in a trial declines to enter the witness box to refute the charges against him, the judge may tell the jury that they should not draw any conclusions about his guilt or otherwise. However, nearly everybody recognises that if the accused was really innocent of the charges, he would make a serious effort to clear his name. They know that such a refusal usually means that the accused knows that the case against him is so watertight, backed up by such irrefutable evidence, that all he will do is to dig himself deeper into the hole that he is already in.
Such is the result of the ill-judged reply by the faceless and nameless ‘spokesman for the Planning Panel’ (GP, Friday 5 July) to the four examples of blatant bias shown by the planning tribunal in the case of the appeal against the Environment board’s refusal to allow building on high-quality virgin agricultural land at Les Blanches, St Martin’s. Since the Planning Panel is under the aegis of the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure and since the reply must have been cleared by the political board, then we can look among Messrs Brehaut BL, Dorey MH, Hansmann-Rouxel ST and Langlois SL for the supine culprits who are too timorous to stand up and refute serious charges made in full public view against one of their entities. (Deputy de Sausmarez is excluded as she is clearly on the side of the angels, being a co-signee of the Merrett requete. This seeks changes to the Island Development Plan which, amongst other things, would allow politicians a greater say in planning applications so that the will of the people will be given some force against the fixed rules of imperfect legislation adhered to by bureaucrats as shown by their advice to allow the application to develop the field at Les Blanches).
Before any of the culprits claim that they as States members must not get involved in the everyday business of those departments of State for which they are responsible – as the Home Affairs committee stand accused – they should ponder on the fact that the political board of the Development & Planning Authority was specifically authorised in the Rural Area Plan to get involved in the planning process whenever applications were made under Policy RH2. However, in allowing the appeal against the politicians’ decisions, the planning tribunal never considered ‘discretion’, not even mentioning the word except when it copied the wording of Policy RH2 into its report justifying its decision. For the tribunal, as for the planning officers, it was a case of ‘if it is allowable, it must be allowed’.
Finally, the advice that any dissatisfied ‘third party representor’ can always go to Judicial Review is the ultimate bureaucratic cop-out and, quite frankly, it is so inappropriate in these circumstances as to be insulting to everyone’s intelligence. The fact that judicial review is the only way that a planning appeal verdict can be challenged shows how out of touch with reality this system is. It is disgraceful that this is still the only way to challenge an undemocratic planning tribunal’s verdict. For those who do not know (and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this does not include any States members, especially in E&I), judicial reviews cost in excess of £100,000, with the added bonus that if you lose you may have to shoulder the legal costs of the other party. Judicial review was considered after the appeal verdict on Les Blanches but several friendly advocates vigorously advised against it solely on financial grounds – the necessary initial costs were likely to be in the region of £5k-£20k (and that was only to see whether a case might be considered by the Royal Court), whilst the final costs could be ruinous.
In Guernsey, justice in planning matters is clearly the preserve of the ultra-rich and is well outside the reach of anybody who doesn’t have the odd spare £100k to gamble.
The majority of Guernsey people, especially those in the northern parishes, now see that planning is running out of control, with every little bit of greenfield land in the urban areas being targeted for development. This is not what we were led to expect when the Island Development Plan was debated and accepted. Many islanders are now finding out that sentiments and statements expressed in debate hold no power at all when it comes to planning. Not even the written word counts for much these days. It can be disregarded by unaccountable persons in ‘arm’s length bodies’ (e.g. planning tribunals) who are empowered to put into practice their own interpretation of what those words say, without there being any practical recourse for a challenge to that interpretation either before or during the tribunal hearing or after the verdict is given.
It is a culmination of all these clear infringements of the raison d’etre and spirit of conservation of our green spaces by the UAP, RAP and now IDP that has ultimately led to the formation of the highly laudable Delancey Conservation Committee (all strength to its elbow). Pressure from vocal objectors such as these, together with concerns about the IDP shown by the majority of States members in the debate on the Annual Monitoring Report, persuaded several deeply concerned deputies to put their names to the requete headed by Deputy Merrett. They seek (amongst other things) to rein in the ‘Development & Planning Authority and make it democratically accountable, giving it discretion (there’s that word again) to make more than minor departures from a development plan where other material planning considerations weigh in favour of such a departure’. However, a word of warning – ‘discretion’ appears to count for naught amongst planners, especially if it is given to those nuisances, the politicians on the board.
Undoubtedly this is why Item 19 of the requete petitions for ‘... greater representation for third parties in the planning system... to have the right to be heard by, or have their views adequately represented to the planning tribunal.’ It would introduce a third party right of appeal against decisions on planning applications which would be consistent with a similar third party right of appeal against planning application decisions in Jersey.
Committees are reported as being less than enthusiastic about the requete, quoting costs, timing etc. (GP, Saturday 13 July). Hopefully the requete will garner more support amongst rank and file deputies who daily are aware of the damage that the current implementation of the IDP is causing. They can see that the democratic ideal is gradually being replaced by a bureaucracy, with the apparent support of some of those very same politicians who should be supporting democracy.
The one bright spot in this otherwise dismal landscape of planning is P&R’s support for Item 19 of the requete.
Well, well. Perhaps there is a god in heaven.
TONY LEE
Les Salines,
Le Vallon,
St Martin’s,
Guernsey,
GY4 6DN.