FOCUS: More new fields assessed for affordable housing

It’s emerged there is a further list of 61 sites being considered as potentials, which have been submitted by the landowners themselves – even if supported by the inspectors, these would still need a formal proposition from a States Member to amend the bridging Island Plan, before they would be developed.

But the list does give an insight into where new homes may end being built in the future.

As part of the Island Plan process – which will determine where houses and other development will go between 2022 and 2025 – two independent inspectors are currently hearing evidence to see if the draft ‘bridging plan’ meets the objectives it sets out to meet.When it comes to sites for affordable housing, they are judging the suitability of scores of fields and other sites.

Top of the list are nine sites proposed by Environment Minister John Young, which were included in the draft plan when it was published in April.

There were 11 sites initially, but two have since been withdrawn by their owners.

Then, as part of the subsequent consultation process, more potential fields were added into the mix by politicians lodging amendments to the plan.

Some politicians are also seeking to have sites removed.

The minister has accepted some of the extra sites and rejected others.

In September, Deputy Young then added in a ‘Plan B’ list of sites should some or all of his preferred sites be rejected or withdrawn.

These missed the first round of consultation – prompting criticism that they had been dropped into the process without any publicity or proper scrutiny.

Pictured: St Clement politicians and parishioners have vowed to fight development on fields in their parish.

St. Clement, for instance, did not feature in any of the initial sites but appeared in the Plan B list – much to the anger of parishioners, who have vowed to fight more development in their parish.

Deputy Young, however, passed it onto the inspectors – as part of the ‘examination in public’ phase of the plan – to assess the viability of these 11 Plan B sites.

He also asked them to look at six extra fields which appeared in States Members’ amendments, which he does not support rezoning and building on.

However, as part of the ‘examination in public’, landowners have also been allowed to submit sites for consideration – both new ones and those that have already been rejected by the Minister after he called for potential sites at the very beginning of the Island Plan process last year.

This list – 61 sites – was assessed over two days of hearings last week, with a number of landowners speaking or being represented by independent planning consultants.

The inspectors – UK-based Keith Holland and Geoff Salter – have also visited the sites. They will consider their planning merits and share their views in a report to Deputy Young, which will be published early next year.

Building on these 61 sites, however, is far from a done deal.

Any proposal to include any of them in the Bridging Island Plan would need to be the subject of an amendment, either from the Minister or another States Member.

At present, out of the 61 amendments lodged so far, none relate to any of these sites.

If one was lodged, it would join the 61 being discussed and voted on by the Assembly when the whole draft Bridging Island Plan is debated next March.

And even if an amendment was accepted, the site would then be subject to a development brief and planning application, which would be subject to normal public scrutiny and appeals process.

However, for now these extra sites remain in the development mix, despite not featuring in the initial ten-week public consultation in April, May and June.

Anyone wanting to identify where the sites are can search for them on this interactive map produced by the Government.