A CALL by business leaders for the use of a limited number of derelict vinery sites to help ease the shortage of industrial land, especially the so-called ‘Fred in a shed’-type operations, is understandable. The frustration and the damage done to some enterprises as a result of the former Environment Department’s intransigence on this matter is well placed and action needs to be taken to deal with the matter.
However, there are two reasons why the demand, even for what the Chamber of Commerce called an exceptional, one-off innovative approach for old glasshouse sites in the urban area or its fringes, is unlikely to succeed.
The first is that releasing such redundant areas has already failed to provide sufficient land under existing planning policies.
The second is that land use is a key strategic element of the Government Business Plan and trying to reconcile frequently conflicting demands in a tiny island is exceptionally complex. One-off gestures, no matter how well meant, merely create other problems later.
This whole matter is also particularly complicated, involving changes to the strategic land use plan, amended detailed development plans, a survey of business needs and, following a planning inquiry, policy changes to help Freds in sheds.
The issue has been under consideration since 2005, which is why Environment’s U-turn in February, effectively negating all the progress made, was so galling for Commerce and Employment and industry. It literally undid years of patient, intricate work and let down a whole sector of local employers, seemingly on a whim.
What will baffle islanders is how it could happen.
One department simply went against States’ policy on business development and pulled the plug on hours of work. The most alarming aspect is that, bar for the timing of April’s general election, that block, that absence of being part of corporate government, would still be in place with no way of dealing with it.
Environment’s quasi-judicial role as planning authority complicates matters but the fact remains that, although the States can unanimously agree a strategic direction, any one of the 10 departments can, should they choose, frustrate elements of it.
‘Freds’ need more help
A CALL by business leaders for the use of a limited number of derelict vinery sites to help ease the shortage of industrial land, especially the so-called ‘Fred in a shed’-type operations, is understandable. The frustration and the damage done to some enterprises as a result of the former Environment Department’s intransigence on this matter is well placed and action needs to be taken to deal with the matter.
However, there are two reasons why the demand, even for what the Chamber of Commerce called an exceptional, one-off innovative approach for old glasshouse sites in the urban area or its fringes, is unlikely to succeed.
The first is that releasing such redundant areas has already failed to provide sufficient land under existing planning policies.
The second is that land use is a key strategic element of the Government Business Plan and trying to reconcile frequently conflicting demands in a tiny island is exceptionally complex. One-off gestures, no matter how well meant, merely create other problems later.
This whole matter is also particularly complicated, involving changes to the strategic land use plan, amended detailed development plans, a survey of business needs and, following a planning inquiry, policy changes to help Freds in sheds.
The issue has been under consideration since 2005, which is why Environment’s U-turn in February, effectively negating all the progress made, was so galling for Commerce and Employment and industry. It literally undid years of patient, intricate work and let down a whole sector of local employers, seemingly on a whim.
What will baffle islanders is how it could happen.
One department simply went against States’ policy on business development and pulled the plug on hours of work. The most alarming aspect is that, bar for the timing of April’s general election, that block, that absence of being part of corporate government, would still be in place with no way of dealing with it.
Environment’s quasi-judicial role as planning authority complicates matters but the fact remains that, although the States can unanimously agree a strategic direction, any one of the 10 departments can, should they choose, frustrate elements of it.
There is a lesson to be learnt from all this.
Article posted on 28th May, 2008 - 3.21pm