Select a region
Developers have raised concerns with amendments to the Island Development Plan including disapproval with the field neighbouring the hospital not being zoned for housing and warning that new affordable housing sites will create social segregation.
John Bampkin, Chair of the Guernsey Construction Forum, and directors of Infinity Group submitted formal representations to the planning inspector suggesting the Development & Planning Authorities proposed changes to planning guidance will fail to meet housing demand.
“The current IDP plans are unfeasible, and the targets for new affordable and private housing are unlikely to be met. The plan lacks commercial viability and risks failure without significant revisions,” Mr Bampkin wrote.
Meanwhile, Infinity’s directors warned that the plan put forward by the Development & Planning Authority is “undeliverable” meaning housing targets will be missed by 2030.
One site in the mix over the past few years has been a valley field in between the Princess Elizabeth Hospital and Duchess of Kent House, which the previous Policy & Resources and most of Health & Social Care had their eyes on for hospital staff flats.
But the plan hit several hurdles, not least public and political opposition, but also the practicalities of attempting to convert land zoned for agriculture into a building site.
The current P&R, which came in after the former Committee was removed by the States, stopped the scheme arguing focus should be given to sites that have a reasonable prospect of being delivered.
But the site has not fallen out of favour with those in construction.
“It is evident that there is available land adjacent to the hospital that has not been allocated for development. This land could accommodate 80-100 housing units, which would significantly contribute to our housing needs,” Mr Bampkin wrote
Infinity Group directors also said it’s an “obvious” site for housing.
Pictured: At one-point 66 one-bedroom flats were envisaged to be built on this field in the grounds of the hospital.
Mr Bampkin said using housing sites only for social housing risks “social and economic imbalances” within the community.
The DPA has proposed that the six new sites for social housing can have up to 20% of properties sold on the private market to make the projects more commercially viable.
But developers have cast doubt on this being enough to make them deliverable.
“Limiting the percentage split on affordable housing sites to 20% risks rendering these projects non-viable. A more flexible approach is necessary to ensure these developments can proceed successfully,” Mr Bampkin said.
Infinity Group similarly said the 20% cap should be higher.
Both noted that the Guernsey Housing Association is now seeking sites between 15 and 50 units incorporating private housing and working with private developers as they are currently testing at an Oberland's site.
“This preference for mixed-tenure developments should be reflected in the IDP to promote balanced and sustainable communities. It is also concerning that there was no consultation with the GHA prior to the IDP review. Collaborative planning with key stakeholders is vital for creating a plan that meets the needs of all parties involved,” Mr Bampkin said.
Infinity’s directors said land submitted for consideration includes a plot running alongside the L’Aumone centre boundary which could accommodate 30-40 social homes with a builder ready to go and the Guernsey Housing Association showing interest, but it was discounted by the DPA.
Pictured: The Island Development Plan guides construction and land use.
Both parties said “piecemeal” development on smaller sites would help to hit targets quicker and would speed up building and investment.
They called for a more frequent process of courting the community for building sites, including every two years if housebuilding is not keeping pace with targets.
These involve less infrastructure development and have fewer “planning hurdles”, they added.
This could be essential as they argued that estimates for the level of private housing required were “flawed” and could be more than double what's being projected.
“The timeline of the IDP review urgently needs revision. Industry experts should be allowed to provide constructive feedback based on their commercial knowledge. Without this consideration, the revised IDP should not be approved,” Mr Bampkin said.
“A further key consideration is clearly defining the total housing need broken down into numbers for private houses and private apartments, social housing, affordable housing, and key worker housing, and overlaying these requirements against existing infrastructure and amenity provisions.”
The DPA will formally respond to the representations submitted ahead of a second round of comments which will be considered by an independent planning inspector at a public hearing later this year.
Hundreds of opinions shared on IDP Review
Criticism sees IDP form changed with deadline imminent
DPA's review of IDP 'flawed' according to Deputy
Industry experts band together with Deputy St Pier to give IDP input
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.