MOVES by the Commerce and Employment Department to make the draft Rural Area Plan more flexible for industry met strong opposition at the planning inquiry. The department withdrew a representation for an extension to a specially zoned site north of the airport runway. Instead, it made more general comments.

But objections were made by organisations worried about development in that area unrelated to the airport. Some accused the department of taking a ‘third bite of the cherry’.

‘This representation by the department through the rural area planning inquiry represents a third attempt to break through the planning process,’ said Deputy David de Lisle. ‘Coming back after earlier rejections, including the embarrassment of the Bunkergate affair, people are asking why public money is being wasted in this way time and again.’

The former Board of Industry had attempted in 2002 to get the land rezoned for e-commerce but a planning inspector rejected this. In the States, the board tried to have the land rezoned as a hi-technology park.

Although the representation sought a change to the general policy, it made reference to high-value business and commercial enterprise that place a premium on their proximity to the airport.

Department economic and strategic adviser John Ogier said there was no intention to undermine States policy to direct the majority of industrial and commercial development to the urban area.

‘However, the department has received a significant number of representations on the need for sites,’ he said. ‘The department is aware of some developing economic activity for which the urban area is not a suitable location.’

The exact land requirement needed further research, he added.

The department wanted to see provision in the plan for any industry that had a justification to exist in the rural area, from builders’ yards to hi-tech industry.

The Chamber of Commerce, in a representation echoed by the Guernsey Hotel and Tourism Association, said any variation in policy should be qualified, so that land in or next to the airport was protected.

‘Were it to succeed, we see the present representation as the third bite at the cherry,’ said chamber council member Advocate Roger Dadd.

‘What would be an amendment to the strategic and corporate plan which, taken together with a new wording in the forthcoming RAP, would open the way to use land at the north side of the airport, and perhaps elsewhere, for light industrial purposes.’

Deputy de Lisle said that the rural area in Guernsey was too precious to destroy on a whim.

‘To trade planning guarantees in the RAP to promote new factory development that can be more appropriately located elsewhere is an incredible erosion of principle.’

The Guernsey Aero Club was concerned that the department’s plans could have a long-term adverse effect on the airport.

‘The north side must be kept available for airport-related uses to satisfy the future demands of the airport and the impact on changes in the safety requirements,’ said chairman Colin Ferbrache.

Deputy airport director Simon Macphail also raised concerns about losing land that might be needed for future safety requirements. He warned that development could cause operational problems.

Environment Department representative Damon Hackley said the department had not fully considered the proposed wording.

Limited industrial development was catered for in the draft plan by conversion and home-based workshop policies.