Select a region
A deputy has queried the decision to convert the Auberge into a residential property after being approached by “many members of the public who were in utter disbelief that this change of use could be allowable under policy”.
Deputy Steve Falla put a series of Rule 14 questions to the Development & Planning Authority after a decision was made behind closed doors - rather than at an open planning meeting - for a change of use of the site of the former restaurant in St. Martin's.
The Authority members voted by majority to allow the application to be decided by officials under delegated authority instead of by the members themselves at an open planning meeting.
It is this decision in particular which has been questioned by Deputy Falla. He said it was "reputationally damaging for government".
“On what grounds was the decision taken not to have an open planning meeting, given the noted 'significant opposition' and public interest reflected by 69 objections and a petition of 1,600 names?” asked Deputy Falla.
Pictured: Plans are in place to change the restaurant into a larger private property.
The President of the Authority, Deputy Victoria Oliver, replied: “The [Authority] could see merit in holding an open planning meeting for this application and supported that initially.
“However, on full assessment of all the facts, the [Authority] voted by majority that the application be decided by officers under delegated authority. This is because the application turned out to be straightforward in terms of the planning considerations and the proposed change of use is supported by the Island Development Plan.”
After being asked if the Authority stood by its decisions in this matter, Deputy Oliver said: “The vast majority of planning applications are determined through delegated authority by officers.
“Although delegated authority means that a planning application is not determined in public, officers take on board all representations on material planning considerations received as part of the planning process.
"Given that it was not a unanimous decision for or against an open planning meeting, each Deputy stands by their view.”
Pictured: Deputy Victoria Oliver said the Development & Planning Authority stood by its decision not to refer the Auberge application to an open planning meeting. She has previously acknowledged that she was among the minority of the Authority who wanted the decision made at an open planning meeting.
After receiving the Authority's replies, Deputy Falla said: “The reason I felt it important to ask questions on the public record was that, following the [Authority's] decision, I had approaches from many members of the public who were in utter disbelief that this change of use could be allowable under policy.
“I wanted to clarify, among other things, whether the same policy would apply to other restaurant or pub sites which contain a domestic property. The answer is that it would.
"Of course, the objections weren’t just about the loss of a restaurant, but about the loss forever of access to a very picturesque spot that had been accessible to patrons of the pub then restaurants that occupied it for many decades – for as little as the price of a cup of tea in the garden.
“Above all, I wanted to understand more about the reasons for making this planning decision behind closed doors when there was very significant public interest in the application and opposition to it.
"We know that it wasn’t a unanimous decision and it is regrettable that, even when the approval of an application is within policy, there isn’t an opportunity for those in opposition to make their feelings known in a public forum and see the process transparently in play. It is reputationally damaging for government.
Pictured: Deputy Steve Falla.
“The application was made public last spring and I do question why it took so long to make a 'straightforward' decision on something that was within policy.
“I still regard the description of the site as 'retail' as something of an anomaly.
“The bottom line is that public enjoyment of this beauty spot is now lost forever.
"There is no way of overturning the decision and I already knew that a judicial review would never be granted for a process that was lawful and within policy. I’ve been advised that even if it were granted it would cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of pounds.”
Politicians insist they are not dodging open planning meetings
Petition started to ‘save the Auberge’
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.