DERBYHAVEN: STRAIGHT ANSWERS DEMANDED

While anger rages over the controversial planning consent (Ref. 05/02044/A.) to build 17 houses and four apartments in Derbyhaven, the question on residents’ minds is, “How did we get into this position in the first place?”

A previous application on the same site for a single house was approved in principle with little opposition because the Applicant had promised that he would enter into a Section 18 agreement (of the 1991 Town and Country Planning Act) that would restrict the site to a single dwelling for all time. Specifically, in a letter dated 24^th March 2003, Graham Ferguson Lacey, writing on behalf of his company, said, “If planning approval is granted I will enter into an agreement under a Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 (see attached) binding me and my successors to the provision of one only residential property not exceeding 8,500 net square feet approx on the entire site as outlined in our planning in principle application attached hereto.” Further, “The proposed new single mansion house with the Section 18 agreement will remove the uncertainty as to the long term use of this land in a prime residential area and allay the concerns of occupiers of neighbouring properties, as well as removing an unsightly building with its accompanying functions, which will likely improve property values in this area.” 

Unfortunately, unknown to other stakeholders, the Planning Department and the Applicant did not implement the undertaking. Naturally, residents feel that they have been misled by the Applicant and seriously let down by the Planners.

Assuming Mr Lacey is an honest and trustworthy man, one would expect him to honour this undertaking.  However the planning approval was granted in February 2004 and he has still not done so.  Instead, he obtained a time extension on the single house then put in the application for 21 dwellings.  To date Mr Lacey has failed to provide an explanation as to why he did not sign the Section 18 agreement as consideration for receiving the planning permission he wanted.

Strangely, neither the Department of Local Government and the Environment (DLGE) nor the Planning Committee, the guardians of our precious Island, asked him to sign up to one.  This is despite a draft agreement being attached to the application and knowing that interested and affected parties were relying on the agreement being concluded. Why did DLGE fail to secure the Section 18 agreement as consideration for granting planning permission to the Applicant?  Was this a deliberate decision or an oversight?

The Chairman of the Derbyhaven Residents Society wrote to the DLGE on 25^th April 2006, marked for the attention of the Chief Executive Officer, Mr Hamilton, saying “Could you please inform the residents of Derbyhaven why your Department did not conclude the Section 18 order with Mr Lacey?”  He also asked, ”Could you please confirm whether your Department is prepared to request Mr Lacey to honour his undertaking to sign up to the Section 18 order in respect of the single dwelling?”

When Mr Hamilton replied on 15^th May, he gave an explanation of the workings of the planning process and stated that “The Minister is the appellate body and both he and I, as his principal adviser, must remain detached from the day to day work of the Planning Section and the Planning Committee”. He further stated “I have no personal knowledge – and nor should I have – of the deliberations of the Planning Committee and am not aware, therefore, why it was decided that a Section 18 Agreement should not be entered into, even though one was proposed at one stage.” We find it disturbing that the CEO of DLGE is not prepared to investigate decisions or recommendations made by staff in his department, in particular where serious accusations are made that residents were misled and that the environment has not been given the protection it deserves. Therefore, could someone in DLGE or the Planning Committee please give straight answers to the questions which presumably fall outside the scope of Mr Hamilton’s responsibility?

Clearly, avoiding the legitimate questions asked, poses even more questions.  For example, did anybody feel that they were under pressure to act the way they did?  If so, from what source?  Were mistakes made?  If so, why haven’t they been corrected?

The residents of Derbyhaven and the rest of the Island are entitled to straight answers.

The full story, including copies of all the documents referred to, can be found elsewhere on this website.

Please use the 'Contact Us' page or the 'Guestbook to pledge your support.