THE States stands to gain hundreds of thousands of pounds if it approves telephone mast applications by Airtel. But it refuses to disclose how much.

As concerns grow about transparency and bias in the planning process, enquiries by the Guernsey Press suggest that if all applications were approved, the States could get £230,000 over the next nine years.

A businessman who has now refused to give Airtel permission to erect a 15m mast on his property revealed he was offered what is believed to be a standard fee of £2,500 annually for nine years, to be reviewed according to RPI every three. Airtel would also pay land or property owners a £1,000 fee for agreement to make an application to Environment, whether or not it was approved, he said.

Deputy Mary Lowe, who was asked to step down from the Environment planning board which makes decisions over ‘sensitive’ applications, said it was unacceptable that Treasury and Resources refused to disclose details of commercial transactions with Airtel, or existing agreements with other operators.

‘I understand commercial sensitivity, but the properties and land could be given in total, which would not identify each operator because there are more than one or two which the States is receiving a fee for, so that figure should be disclosed,’ she said.

‘Treasury and Resources should be giving that information because they are responsible for looking after States property commercially, but equally they are looking after the land and property on behalf of the residents of the island.’

Fees paid to the States for existing masts, antennas or dishes and new applications will not be visible in States accounts at the end of the year, but will, like revenue from the Markets, be bundled with other property income and disclosed as one figure.

Colin Fallaize, chairman of No More Masts, set up to campaign against Airtel’s 56 applications, said people had a right to know how much money the States would gain from approving the operator’s applications.

‘My concern about that is while I understand the commercial legalities, those properties or land where masts have ‘been erected’ or have been applied for by Airtel are owned by us – the people of Guernsey. The States merely act as a guarantor,’ he said.

Mr Fallaize added that the States should be more transparent on public finances.

‘While I accept that commercial confidentiality may be required, the company that are asking for the masts to be there should be told that the money paid to the States for use of land or property should be subject to public viewing.’

Turn to Page 2

Treasury and Resources deputy minister Jonathan Le Tocq said legal agreements banned figures from becoming public knowledge.

‘The problem is that we are dealing with commercial entities and disclosing that information could affect the deal causing the operator to back out, which would actually be a loss to the public,’ he said.

‘Any breach of a commercial agreement could mean the company are no longer willing to negotiate and would undermine the process.’

But he agreed with Deputy Lowe that the government needed more transparency.

‘I believe we need to have a more open system, but at the moment we have to operate within the regulations that exist.

‘We are warned by the Law Officers not to disclose information otherwise it affects the agreements – legally, we are bound by them and cannot say anything because of the contracts.’