CHRIS SHEPLEY, the former chief planning inspector of the UK’s Planning Inspectorate, is a highly respected figure with a lifetime’s experience of his specialist area. It is one of the reasons that the Policy Council asked him to carry out a review of Guernsey’s planning service, the operation of which was causing significant concern.

Whether the former Island Development Committee is performing any better now is a moot point. After all, the Scrutiny Committee is to look into how the department has implemented Mr Shepley’s recommendations, which suggests on-going concerns.

One of the specific guidelines that the Shepley Report put forward was unequivocal: ‘I recommend that board meetings dealing with planning applications should be open to the public and the press and that, if successful, this should be extended to other planning matters in due course, subject to suitable safeguards about personal or commercially confidential information.’

Two years later, Environment is still dithering around and islanders are no nearer getting the open and transparent service that they require.

This emerged following the launch of a petition by some concerned islanders worried about the proliferation of ‘eyesore architecture’ and the Guernsey Press asking Environment a simple question: will you please explain why these were approved? The outcome, as we report on page one, was not unexpected: mind your own business.

It was a revealing response, especially since Mr Shepley was moved to remark in his report about ‘the near absolute autonomy’ that departments have, even if that conflicts with States policy.

In other words, this Environment Department can approve what it likes, no matter how unsuitable, unsightly or incongruous, and remain untouchable. Despite the firmest recommendation that they should be open, the deputies on the board believe that there is no need for them to explain their actions.

They might regard such a high-handed attitude to be acceptable – islanders will not.

Irrespective of individual attitudes towards developments, there has to be a rationale behind an application’s approval or rejection and that must be public.

The former IDC was hag-ridden by claims that questionable permissions were granted to those whose face fitted and Environment’s desire for secrecy shows it has learned little from that.