The development received some political and public backlash after 17 pylons were erected, varying in size from 10 to 30 metres high. 

Deputy Victoria Oliver was asked if any 3D modelling was seen before the planning application was approved and whether, on hindsight, did it accurately represent the "impact of the structures”. 

“The application submission package included detailed drawings of the pylons and nets and their heights including scaled elevations shown relative to the academy building and surrounding properties... and the complete package of submitted information was published on the States’ website in February 2021,” said Deputy Oliver. 

“These plans and elevations along with the supporting CGIs properly represented the impact of the structures.” 

She said the application and the impact of the proposed pylons “was very carefully considered” and after the application was assessed as a whole it was determined that the development would deliver “very significant economic and social benefits for the island’s economy”. 

Deputy Falla asked how many representations were made after the application was published online. 

“The published planning report on the application confirms that there were a total of 13 letters or emails of objection received on the application, and one email of support,” replied Deputy Oliver. 

“Four of these representations referred to visual impact from the driving range netting and risk to neighbouring properties from golf balls.” 

The decision to delegate the final application decision to planning officers, instead of holding an Open Planning Meeting with members of the DPA was also called into question. 

“Assessment of the application for La Grande Mare was carried out as normal by professionally trained, qualified and experienced Planning Officers,” said Deputy Oliver. 

“The DPA considered whether or not to delegate the decision and, in December 2021, agreed by majority to delegate the decision on this application to the Director of Planning, following the receipt, publication and consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessment forming part of the application.” 

She continued by arguing that only contentious, high profile or a-typical developments should fall to the political side of the DPA. 

“In this case, there were a total of 13 letters or emails of objection received on the application, and one email of support. Had the Authority received representations at the time from all those who have now come forward, it is likely that the application would have gone to an Open Planning Meeting. 

“However, although the erection of the pylons has caused understandable concerns within the community, many concerns expressed since the pylons have been erected relate to the loss of private views and devaluation of property which are not material planning considerations.” 

You can read the full Q&A ONLINE.