Policies within IDP damaging the island

Last November the third annual report on the progress of the Island Development Plan concluded that ‘the IDP was performing as intended’. What? Unbelievable.

So, it was intended then that agricultural land and green spaces, throughout the island, be lost in ever increasing amounts.

Fortunately, Deputy David De Lisle will ask States members to debate the report at its next meeting on 30 March. I would hope members give him their support.

Of course, there are other policies within the IDP that are causing damage to the island and our way of life.

To me and many others, the decision on the bar and restaurant out at L’Auberge to allow it to become a house seemed strange and wrong. However, what emerged was that there is a policy within the IDP that states ‘retail should be for town and local centres’. I find that quite bizarre.

Many of us like to go out for a special treat to a restaurant with magnificent sea views, but now we are being denied this pleasure.

Venues such as Bon Port, Idlerocks, Le Chalet and now L’Auberge are all gone. We can however sit outside a Town restaurant on the seafront with only a floral barrier between ourselves and the continuous flow of traffic travelling along this major road.

The DPA, advised by its planners, decided an open planning meeting was not necessary for the L’Auberge application.

I disagree with that decision and would remind the DPA that only a few weeks ago a tribunal was held where it was revealed that permission should not have been granted for a packing shed to become a house because of errors made in the planning officer’s report.

So, the planning officers do make mistakes and this is why open planning meetings and, where necessary, tribunals must take place, so that officers’ reports can be challenged.

Something else of interest was also said at this tribunal which can be said to be relevant to the L’Auberge.

Tribunal member Jonathan King said, and I quote from the press report of 1 February 2022, ‘the demonstration of redundancy of a site or building relates not simply to the needs or wishes of the present owner of the property, but to the redundancy of the building in its present or former use more generally’.

‘The fact that the appellants do not wish to use the site or building does not imply that no other person would want to undertake the same or a similar business in them.’ Interesting, eh?

JEANINE LE SAUVAGE

Meadow View

Les Hubits du Bas

St Martin’s

GY4 6NB