AS pressure increases to find new sites for housing and other development, there will undoubtedly be conflict between the drive to rezone the countryside and the need to protect the Island environment.
Signs of that conflict were clear to see in the recent debate which led to the rezoning of green fields for homes for the over-55s. Environment Minister Freddie Cohen, whose portfolio includes planning, made it clear that serious tensions were beginning to arise because of the sometimes contradictory nature of his dual role.
Deputy Paul Le Claire says that this conflict could be resolved if the Environment department were split in two and responsibility for environmental matters and planning allocated separately.
This proposal would, it seems, receive the full backing of Senator Co-hen. But is this radical remodelling of ministerial structures really necessary?
It is clear that the Island environment requires the protection offered by a department focusing on the issues which might threaten it.
It is equally clear that planning — which can be seen as a part of the wider environmental picture — must be overseen at the highest level. These requirements are met under the present distribution of ministerial responsibilities and, in spite of Senator Co-hen’s misgivings about potential conflicts and obvious challenges, there is no evidence to suggest that the system is breaking down.
It can, in fact, be argued that the disparate demands of environmental protection and planning process ought to be evaluated under the supervision of a single politician whose overriding duty is to take decisions based on what is genuinely in the best interests of the Island and Islanders.
The alternative — which would presumably entail the creation of two ministries to replace the present one — would merely mean that any tensions would have to be resolved by two parties arguing from separate positions rather than by a single minister charged with balancing all conflicting arguments.
It is also worth remembering that all ministers make decisions with regard to the Council of Ministers’ policy framework and that the States Assembly remains the final decision-making body whose Members have the final say over the acceptance or rejection of the policies in that framework.
To split or not to split
AS pressure increases to find new sites for housing and other development, there will undoubtedly be conflict between the drive to rezone the countryside and the need to protect the Island environment.
Signs of that conflict were clear to see in the recent debate which led to the rezoning of green fields for homes for the over-55s. Environment Minister Freddie Cohen, whose portfolio includes planning, made it clear that serious tensions were beginning to arise because of the sometimes contradictory nature of his dual role.
Deputy Paul Le Claire says that this conflict could be resolved if the Environment department were split in two and responsibility for environmental matters and planning allocated separately.
This proposal would, it seems, receive the full backing of Senator Co-hen. But is this radical remodelling of ministerial structures really necessary?
It is clear that the Island environment requires the protection offered by a department focusing on the issues which might threaten it.
It is equally clear that planning — which can be seen as a part of the wider environmental picture — must be overseen at the highest level. These requirements are met under the present distribution of ministerial responsibilities and, in spite of Senator Co-hen’s misgivings about potential conflicts and obvious challenges, there is no evidence to suggest that the system is breaking down.
It can, in fact, be argued that the disparate demands of environmental protection and planning process ought to be evaluated under the supervision of a single politician whose overriding duty is to take decisions based on what is genuinely in the best interests of the Island and Islanders.
The alternative — which would presumably entail the creation of two ministries to replace the present one — would merely mean that any tensions would have to be resolved by two parties arguing from separate positions rather than by a single minister charged with balancing all conflicting arguments.
It is also worth remembering that all ministers make decisions with regard to the Council of Ministers’ policy framework and that the States Assembly remains the final decision-making body whose Members have the final say over the acceptance or rejection of the policies in that framework.
Article posted on 23rd July, 2008 - 3.00pm