The JEP highlighted the issue of redundant glasshouses yesterday, following recent supplementary planning guidance (SPG) on the issue*.
Here are some thoughts on how the issue might be resolved.
First, redundant glasshouses are not “brownfield” sites, they are agricultural land with temporary structures. From a planning point of view, the default position is that once the glasshouses become redundant, they should be removed and the land returned to agricultural use.
Second, notwithstanding the above, it is clear – as the JEP editorial says – that there is currently an impasse. Glasshouse owners are unable or unwilling to remove derelict glass. This may be because – as is often claimed – the landowner lacks the resources to clean up their sites. But it is also because many owners place “hope value” on their glasshouse sites and believe that whilst glasshouse structures remain in place they have a high chance of one day being able to realise massive gains by turning them into housing estates.
Third, in my mind the key to breaking the current impasse is to recognise that glasshouse sites should not be treated as all in one category. For example, there are some sites that I do not believe should ever have housing on them. They are simply too remote or too distant from relevant services and transport links. There are others where it is likely that some limited housing development would be appropriate. The mistake so far has been to try and find one policy that covers the whole sector.
Fourth, it follows that we need a way to categorise glasshouse sites. When I was minister I proposed (to my ministerial colleagues) an audit of glasshouse sites that would examine all redundant sites to establish such matters as: their planning history, suitability for other agricultural uses (for example, medicinal cannabis), proximity to services (mains water, electricity, telecoms, sewage) and transport and relationship to existing settlements. This would have helped establish which sites would be most appropriate for development.
Fifth, the final element of the package would be to create a funding mechanism that allowed those sites which would not be developed for housing to access finance to clear up the derelict glass. This might come – for example – from a levy on the uplift in land values from those sites that are given planning permission for development. (This might be achieved through implementation of P14/2023, which was passed by the Assembly and mandates the development of a levy on rezoning of greenfield sites.)
Dealing with redundant glasshouses will be an issue for the next Island Plan to resolve. It makes sense to prepare for that plan by initiating an audit of all glasshouse sites in the island so that properly informed decisions can be taken when the next plan comes forward.
*The glasshouse SPG was initiated when I was minister for the Environment and completed by my successor. The final version had only very minor changes from the version that was put out to consultation when I was minister. This is not surprising, in that SPG cannot make or change the existing policy framework (which is set within the Bridging Island Plan). Its job is to provide clarification and extra detail to help interpretation of the Bridging Island Plan. It is worth noting that during the States debate over the Bridging Island Plan, an amendment that would have allowed development on glasshouse sites was defeated.
Jonathan Renouf 