Select a region
The decision to delegate the La Grande Mare redevelopment application, instead of holding an open planning meeting, has once again been called into question.
The President of the Development and Planning Authority was grilled about the timeline of events that led to the contentious application being approved during today’s States debate.
It comes as the redevelopment of the hotel and golf club continues to field intense public and political scrutiny, after dozens of pylons for a driving range were recently erected.
Questions were put to Deputy Victoria Oliver by Deputy Gavin St Pier during today’s debate, leading to dozens of supplementary questions from the chamber.
It began with Deputy St Pier asking if any changes have been made to the Authority’s Scheme of Delegation of the Land Planning and Development Law (2005).
Deputy Oliver said: “Since October 2020 the published approved scheme of delegation has been amended firstly in December 2021, to add the words: ‘Under Section 83, the authority may vary the scheme of delegation at any time by further resolution of the committee.’
“And secondly, in May 2022, to amend one of the exceptions criteria of the approved scheme of delegation by adding the words: ‘A committee member has requested formal consideration by the authority and following the agreement to this request by the committee.’
“These amendments were made firstly for completeness as regard to the relevant legal provisions and secondly, to make clear the committee's procedural approach.”
Pictured: Some of the pylons in question at La Grande Mare reach 30-metres high.
When asked if the Authority received formal written advice from Law Officers before making the changes, she said she couldn’t remember.
Deputy St Pier then asked: “Did the Authority agree to make the changes referred to in May 2022... in order to retrospectively give authority to the decision not to have an open planning meeting in respect to the redevelopment of the La Grande Mare hotel?”
Deputy Oliver replied: “How we've concluded to an open planning meeting has been the same since I arrived on the committee at the beginning of 2016 - the rules haven't changed at all. It's just that we were updating what was said in there - nothing's changed in how we deal with it.”
She was then quizzed by a member of her own committee, Deputy Andy Taylor, who asked: “If the authority amended the accepting criteria in May 2022, did the Authority follow the approved exceptions prior to making amendments?”
Deputy Oliver declined to answer, instead simply stating that “Deputy Taylor is on the committee".
Planning decisions can be delegated to the Director of Planning and other staff except where there “appears to be contentious or sensitive issues”.
It was this point that was the focus of Deputy St Pier’s second question, where he asked what the criteria for contentious or sensitive issues is.
“Whether a planning application appears to raise particularly contentious or sensitive issues is a matter of judgement,” replied Deputy Oliver.
"One factor considered would normally be the number and content of representations received on an application following the statutory public consultation.”
Several supplementary questions were then put to Deputy Oliver by Deputy St Pier and others.
Deputy Steve Falla asked: “The President referred to a matter of judgment. In the planning report on the La Grande Mare decision, the word adverse is used no less than 27 times. Does the repeated use of adverse not suggest that judgement might conclude the matter was likely to be contentious and or sensitive?”
To which Deputy Oliver replied: “It was put to a vote whether it would go to an open planning meeting and it was three to say no, and two to go to an OPM".
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.