This Is Guernsey

By Simon Tostevin

ENVIRONMENT has been called bureaucratic for refusing to give blanket approval to changes to heritage signs. Deputy Mike O’Hara criticised the planning department for making Culture and Leisure go back to it with an individual application for every one.

He said this happened in the case of at least 40 boards and a whole host of other signs and was an illustration of how planning applications were being delayed unnecessarily.

‘When the Culture and Leisure Department was formed, it took over the responsibilities of the Recreation Committee such as display boards at various tourist sites.

‘We had to change them to say Culture and Leisure and to show new contact details. But we had to treat every single one of them as a separate application, which I think is scandalous.

‘And even after a full term ‘of the States’ I don’t even think we have gained approval for all of them.

‘Something like this happening - when it’s just one States body talking to another - is simply bureaucratic. They wouldn’t even allow us to put them through in groups of 10.

‘We are very frustrated at Culture and Leisure with the time taken to get this done.’

But Environment minister David De Lisle said that while he appreciated Deputy O’Hara’s perspective, it was simply not right and there had not been a delay.

‘It is, however, an inescapable fact that Environment, as a quasi-judicial planning authority, must deal with such submissions in a procedurally rigorous way in order to properly discharge its obligations under the relevant legislation and States resolutions.

‘This, regrettably, cannot be practically achieved in the manner that Deputy O’Hara appeared to be suggesting, i.e. on the basis of a blanket approval for the erection of signs on a list of historic sites without adequate details of the location and form of the signs proposed for each site.

‘Any implication that the proposals for such signage, which have been considered by the department in the normal way, could have been processed with less information within the same timescale is also incorrect.

‘It was precisely because these submissions were correctly made with adequate information to enable their proper processing, including carrying out of third-party consultations, which enabled the positive outcomes to be achieved without delay.’