TODAY’S announcement that two States departments are hiring consultants to look at the island’s retail sector has a disturbing edge to it for the very reasons it has been commissioned: developing an island retail strategy and whether the Leale’s Yard development should go ahead in St Sampson’s.

There is something rather incongruous – to use a word much favoured by planners – for Environment using a third party to help it decide whether it should approve an application that has been made under the legislation and design brief that it prepared.

Is it telling us that it doesn’t know what it is doing and cannot be trusted to do a proper job, which is why its planning staff need to be told what to do by expensive outsiders?

And if it’s not up to the task for Leale’s Yard, why on earth didn’t it engage proper planners to stop the visual carnage that has become Admiral Park? And why stop there? How about buying in some common sense to halt the proposed flat-top blockhouse about to be shoehorned into the historically sensitive Coupee Lane site in Town?

Few islanders had any faith in the late, unlamented IDC and now Environment seems to be agreeing and saying that the planning department that has taken over cannot be relied on either.

Commerce and Employment’s desire to establish a retail strategy focused on Town is similarly concerning.

When the consultants have finished charging to explain that there are empty shops in Town because the rents are too high, the properties are in the wrong place and, having been built in the 18th and 19th centuries, they are now hopelessly inadequate for today’s retailers, what is C&E going to do about it?

Similarly with paying its consultants to look at off-island shopping, catalogue and internet sales. Yes, it is competition and it hurts local business but is C&E going to ban it or restrict it in some way?

According to a 2007 report by consultants about the use by the States of consultants, there are nine critical success factors in using them properly.

In this case, there is only one.

Could the ministers please explain what value taxpayers will received from this expenditure?