In simple words
Mr & Mrs Miller applied in June 2025 to convert their old war bunker into a small house and at that time, the bunker wasn’t legally protected. But after people complained, the Planning Authority suddenly declared it historically important and added it to the protected list whilst still reviewing the application, then refused permission because it was “now” protected. This is like changing the rules during a football match to make sure one side loses. The Authority even admitted in writing that they only protected the bunker after receiving objections, and that the protection paperwork “was still being prepared” when they refused the application (so not a valid reason). They essentially cheated by using rules that didn’t exist when the Millers applied, proving they use protection laws as weapons to block developments they don’t like rather than for genuine conservation.
The Development & Planning Authority’s rejection of plans to convert a Perelle bunker into housing reveals an interesting distinction between possessing legal powers and exercising them lawfully.
The Facts
A Mr & Mrs Miller submitted plans on 25 June 2025 to convert their three-room 1944 bunker above Rue Du Catioroc into a one-bedroom home. The property was unlisted when the application was filed. During the consultation period, after receiving objections highlighting the bunker’s rarity, the Authority’s conservation team surveyed the property, determining it possessed “European importance” as one of only two known examples of its type across the entire Atlantic Wall.
The Authority rejected the application on 25 September 2025 on grounds that the property was a protected monument. The official decision document confirms “the bunker was added to the protected monument list during the determination of this application.“
The Legal Framework
Under the Land Planning and Development (Guernsey) Law, 2005, the Authority possesses power to list buildings of special interest. The law does not expressly prohibit listing during consideration of an application. Planning applications must be determined according to the law and policy framework in force at the time of decision, not submission.
However, this general principle comes with important constraints.
The Fatal Flaw: Reactive Listing Without Due Process
The Authority’s Officer’s Report contains a damning admission: the property was surveyed “following the receipt of representations during the consultation period. These representations highlighted the rarity of the bunker design… and so the bunker was added to the protected monument list.“
This sequence confirms the reactive nature of the listing – triggered specifically by opposition to the development, not by any independent conservation assessment. The press report’s revelation that “the protection notice was still being prepared and was not ready for publishing” at the time of refusal suggests the listing process remained incomplete even at determination. Certainly at the time of writing this, there is no such listing on the States web / map search.
Two apparent breaches by the DPA exist:
- Ignoring actual legal status (unlisted at submission).
- Applying a fictitious status (treated as listed without publication).
The Authority’s Own Evidence of Impropriety
The Officer’s Report explicitly states that Policy GP6 (Protected Monuments) is “now relevant” to the application – that word “now” constituting an admission of retrospective application. The Authority cannot make a policy “now relevant” to an application submitted when it was not relevant.
Even more troubling, the Authority openly declares its approach: according to the Guernsey Press, they “would consider listing [structures] when they became aware of development that might harm their interest.” This admits to weaponising the listing process against unwanted development.
Breach of Legitimate Expectation
UK courts have consistently found retrospective listing during live applications problematic when done to frustrate an application. The documented sequence here – application made, objections received, property surveyed in response, listing prepared, application refused – reveals precisely this prohibited practice.
The applicants possessed a legitimate expectation that the Authority would not arbitrarily shift the regulatory framework mid-process to defeat their application.
The Compound Problem
The Authority faces multiple potential legal failings:
First, it applied a listing triggered by the application itself, violating principles against reactive designation.
Second, the listing appears incomplete even at determination, with the protection notice “still being prepared.“
Third, the Authority appears to openly admit to using listing as a blocking mechanism rather than for independent conservation purposes.
The Proper Course
Had the Authority acted lawfully, it could have determined the application based on the property’s unlisted status, then commenced listing procedures if genuinely warranted. If conservation concerns existed independently, nothing prevented listing before the application emerged. The fact that listing occurred only after objections were received reveals the true motivation.
The Dangerous Precedent
The Authority’s stated policy of considering listing, as the GP says: “when they became aware of development that might harm their interest” creates intolerable uncertainty. This transforms protective designation from a conservation tool into a development-blocking weapon, deployable whenever objections arise.
Conclusion
This case demonstrates that possessing statutory powers does not license their arbitrary exercise. The Authority’s own documentation proves it changed the property’s legal status during determination specifically to block the development.
I imagine that the applicants could appeal immediately on grounds of ultra vires action, breach of legitimate expectation, and procedural impropriety. The Planning Tribunal appears to have clear grounds to overturn this decision based on the Authority’s own admissions.
The States must investigate whether the Authority routinely weaponises the listing process against unwanted development. The documented admission that listings are considered when development “might harm their interest” suggests systemic abuse of conservation powers.
The Authority had the power to list; it lacked the power to ambush applicants with reactive designation triggered by planning objections. That distinction between lawful authority and unlawful exercise lies at the heart of administrative law. The DPA’s own documentation proves it has forgotten that entirely and it suggests a form of institutional immaturity that is almost unique to Guernsey.
And that is a consequence of an almost complete lack of accountability that we have allowed to develop in our Island’s governance.
https://guernseypress.com/news/2025/10/03/late-listing-ends-housing-plan-for-perelle-bunker
http://buildingexplorer.gov.gg/Northgate/Images/Planning%20Decisions%20PDFs/FULL-2025-0998.pdf