States Meeting Transcript - 16/07/2008

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 16th JULY 2008

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................6

1. Provision of land for lifelong dwellings (for people over 55) and first-time buyers: amendment to Island Plan (2002) (P.75/2008) - continued..............................6

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:......................................................................6
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:................................................8
3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................10
4. Connétable G.J. Butcher of St. John:....................................................11 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................13 Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:............................................13
5. Connétable D.F. Gray ofSt.Clement:..................................................13
6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement:.......................................................13
7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................15
8. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................17
9. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:........................................................19
10. Deputy S.C. Ferguson of St. Brelade : ..................................................20
11. Connétable J.L.S. Gallichan of Trinity :.................................................21
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:....................................................23
13. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................25
14. Deputy A. Breckon:....................................................................25
15. Deputy G.W.J. de Faye of St. Helier:...................................................31
16. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................34
17. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement : ...............................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................38 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................38 The Bailiff :...................................................................................38

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

PUBLIC BUSINESS (continued)................................................................38

18. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................38
19. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean of St. Helier:...................................................39
20. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................41
21. Deputy A.D. Lewis of St. John : ........................................................44
22. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................45
23. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................47
24. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :........................................................49
25. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................53

26. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................55 The Attorney General:........................................................................57 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................59

The Attorney General:........................................................................59 Deputy A. Breckon:..........................................................................59 The Attorney General:........................................................................59 Senator J.L. Perchard:........................................................................59

27. Senator M.E. Vibert :....................................................................60 The Attorney General:........................................................................61
28. Senator F.H. Walker :...................................................................61 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ............................................................................62 The Attorney General:........................................................................62

29. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................62
30. Senator S. Syvret:......................................................................63
31. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................65 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................67

2. Draft Proceeds of Crime (Enforcement of Confiscation Orders) (Jersey) Regulation 200- (P.79/2008)..........................................................................87

Deputy P.N. Troy : ............................................................................87

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................88 Senator W. Kinnard:..........................................................................89

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................89
2. Deputy I.J. Gorst : ......................................................................89
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................89 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................90 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................91 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................91

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................91

2.2.1 Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................91 The Bailiff :...................................................................................91

3. Draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.80/2008)...............................................................................92

1. Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................92

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:...............................................................92
2. Deputy P.J.D. Ryan::...................................................................92
3. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................92 The Bailiff :...................................................................................93 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Services Scrutiny Panel):.........................93

2. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................93 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................93

4. Draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Enforcement of Confiscation Orders) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.81/2008)............................................................95

4.1 Senator T.A. Le Sueur (The Minister for Treasury and Resources): ....................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................95 Deputy P.J.D. Ryan (Chairman, Corporate Affairs Scrutiny Panel)::..........................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................95 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................95

5. Draft Terrorism (Enforcement of External Orders) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.84/2008)...............................................................................96

The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................96

1. Senator W. Kinnard (The Minister for Home Affairs):..................................96

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................96
2. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................96 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:....................................................................96 The AttorneyGeneral:........................................................................96 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................97 The Deputy Bailiff :...........................................................................98 Deputy D.W. Mezbourian (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel): ........98

2. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................98

1. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................98
2. Senator W. Kinnard:....................................................................99

6. Draft Shipping (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.85/2008)..................102

1. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean (Assistant Minister for Economic Development - rapporteur): ........................................................................................102

1. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:..............................................103
2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ..............................................................103

2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ..............................................................103

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................103
2. Deputy A.J.H. Maclean: ..............................................................103

7. Draft Companies (Takeovers and Mergers Panel) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.86/2008)...104

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development):....................104

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................105
2. The Connétable of Grouville :..........................................................105
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................105 The Attorney General:......................................................................105 Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...................................................................106 The Attorney General:......................................................................106 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.......................................................................106 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................106

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................106 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................106

1. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains:..............................................................106
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................106 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................106
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................107 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................107 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................107

8. Draft Limited Partnerships (Amendment) (Jersey) Law 200- (P.87/2008)...........107

The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................107 Deputy I.J. Gorst : ...........................................................................107 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................107

1. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf (The Minister for Economic Development:.....................107

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................108
2. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ............................................................108 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................108
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................108

The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109

2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :.................................................................109 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109

9. Draft Income Support (Amendment of Law) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.88/2008)109

The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................109 9.1 Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):..............................109

1. The Deputy of St. Martin:.............................................................110
2. Senator M.E. Vibert :..................................................................110
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..............................................................110
4. Deputy J.A. Hilton:....................................................................110
5. Deputy S.C. Ferguson:................................................................110
6. The Deputy of St. John:...............................................................110 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................110
7. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................110 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................110 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................111 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................111 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................111

10. Draft Income Support (Amendment No. 2) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.88/2008)..112

The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................112

1. Senator P.F. Routier (The Minister for Social Security):..............................112 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................113

1. Deputy A. Breckon: ................................................................113
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................113
3. Deputy G.P. Southern : .............................................................113 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................114
4. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................114 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................114 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................114 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................115 Deputy A. Breckon:.........................................................................115 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................115

2. Senator P.F. Routier: ..................................................................115 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................115

1. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:...................................................116 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................116
2. Senator P.F. Routier:...............................................................116 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................116 The Deputy Bailiff :..........................................................................116

STATEMENT ON A MATTER BY THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT AND

TECHNICAL SERVICES................................................................116

11. Statement by the Minister for Transport and Technical Services regarding recent events at Bellozanne....................................................................116

11.1 Deputy G.W.J. de Faye (The Minister for Transport and Technical Services): ........116 The Bailiff ..................................................................................117

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................117

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Provision of land for lifelong dwellings(for people over 55) and first-time buyers: amendment to Island Plan (2002) (P.75/2008) - continued

The Deputy Bailiff :

We resume the debate on P.75. Does any other Member wish to speak?

Deputy P.J.D. Ryan of St. Helier :

May I raise the défaut on the Deputy of St. John, please?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. The Assembly agrees to raise the défaut of the Deputy of St. John ? The défaut is raised.

1. Senator F.E. Cohen:

Firstly I would like to begin by congratulating the Assistant Minister, the Deputy of Trinity and the officers for their extraordinarily hard work in bringing this proposition forward. Whether individual Members support it or not, they cannot feel anything other than support for the enormous efforts that the Assistant Minister and officers have put in to getting this proposition to this stage. Furthermore, I would like to compliment the Connétable s for all their support in putting together this proposition, which has taken some considerable time and a great deal of effort on their part. I would like to firstly deal with an issue raised by Deputy Mezbourian yesterday. Deputy Mezbourian raised the issue of the conflict between the roles of Minister for Planning and the Minister for the Environment. I wholeheartedly agree with her as the tensions between the 2 roles representing diametrically opposed interests on occasions is often irreconcilable. In this case there are 2 irreconcilable issues. As Minister for Environment I want to defend the countryside and as Minister for Planning I want to provide decent homes for our retiring population. A number of officers at Environment form the rural strategy economy group and they have raised the issue of the loss of farm land that will result from rezoning of a few sites. However, they represent just one side of this debate, that of the effective rezoning specifically on the loss of farm land and nothing else. It is my job to balance all the issues and my conclusion is unequivocal. Having considered all the issues I have no doubt that building our rural communities and providing much needed high quality housing for our retirees prevails in the case of the current rezoning propositions. In this case that means that my planning obligations have specifically prevailed. I would wholeheartedly support the separation of the roles of Environment and Planning Ministers. However, Members must realise that if this is pursued it has very specific implications for the balance of the States. But to reiterate I do consider that the 2 roles are at times diametrically opposed and balancing the 2 will always be just a balancing act. The Minister will have to come down firmly on one side or another. I will now move on to the specific proposition. Our community has changed and it is changing at a rapid pace. As medical advances have benefited our community over recent decades, people live longer and we are just simply not well fitted for that change in our community. Whether this proposition succeeds or fails, that is something that we as the representatives of the electorate will have to deal with. We simply have to provide for the changes in our community and that means people living longer and requiring to be housed appropriately and for longer. That applies whether they are rich or poor. We have heard the comments of the Deputy of St. Ouen who raised the issue of upsizing. He is quite right, there are people who are upsizing but the majority of opportunity here lies in those, and there are many Islanders who are prepared and wish to downsize. We all know examples. However, they are not prepared to downsize into inappropriate housing accommodation. They will downsize into only appropriate housing accommodation that allows them to live with dignity, with some space, with rooms that are large enough to accommodate them properly and that is what this proposition is fundamentally about. The Deputy has gone to enormous efforts with the Assistant Minister of Housing and the Minister of Housing and officers

of both departments to look at the best sort of accommodation that is available in other jurisdictions. This is about delivering even better. If we are able to approve the current proposition this will deliver some of the finest retirement housing. Yes, it will deliver retirement housing that is at a relatively low density but I am afraid if you wish to encourage downsizing, that is precisely what you have to do. It does have consequential effects. It takes up more land per house. But I am afraid there is no answer to that and the alternative concept of delivering small rabbit hutches piled one on top of another, I am afraid will not deliver the sort of accommodation that will encourage people to downsize and provide adequate accommodation for those who are presently desperate to move in into appropriate retirement accommodation. There was, in the early stages, some doubt about demand. I hope that Members will have seen the housing needs survey and will now be convinced that there is demand for at least this number of houses. Do bear in mind that if this proposition is approved by the Assembly that we are probably not going to deliver any houses on the ground for 2 years and more likely 3 years, and some of the sites will be 5 years away. The process from rezoning to moving in is a frustratingly slow process as we have seen with the 2002 Island Plan rezonings. While this may be a slightly less protracted affair, do not expect immediate delivery. But this is about building rural communities. Many of us who have been involved with the country Parish municipalities in different ways will know the profound benefits that have been delivered to those communities by retirement developments. I look particularly at those in Trinity and St. John where I have experience. They really do build the community. It is a symbiotic benefit, those who live in the houses benefit from the community and the community benefits from them. That is also all about providing living space with dignity. The better the living space the better the symbiotic benefit. If you provide good quality houses with proper amenities then you end up with an improved benefit. Indeed it may be worthwhile at some point the Assistant Minister explaining ideas in terms of just how good and how well thought out her specific proposals are in relation to the design of the homes. The Assistant Minister and the Assistant Minister of Housing have gone to great lengths to ensure that they have covered the most important elements of 21st century living. There has been some criticism of piecemeal development. I am afraid that in an Island that has developed over millennia we are never going to place ourselves in the position of,

for example, great architects like Le Corbusier when he was he was invited to design new towns. We simply do not have enough space. We have just made the monumentally important decision in relation to the waterfront. That is the biggest space we are ever likely to be able to master plan. So it is thinking that we are ever going to be in a position of holistically providing an overall solution for the Island's planning and for a built up development over decades is simply unrealistic. The Island Plan and the Island Plan review will do part of it but there will always be a need to consider other issues and immediate needs in the intervening periods. I can assure Members that had the Assistant Minister and I not wholeheartedly believed that there was an urgent need for this proposition to be considered, we would have taken an alternative route which would have meant rolling it up into the Island Plan review. But we believe that it is essential that this matter is considered now because we believe we have an obligation to those who have worked in our community all their lives and now desperately need appropriate retirement housing. There is some concern at the level of profitability that some of these schemes will deliver. While that is not a planning matter it is something that naturally will prey upon all of us. However, the schemes can be broken into 2 types, those that are developer profit schemes and those that are driven by the Connétable s where the primary benefits will be derived by the Parish. In relation to the former group, the group of rezone sites that will be developer profit schemes, I can assure Members that if I am Minister and if the Assistant Minister has any say in it, there will be extremely robust planning obligations upon the developers to ensure that the maximum public benefit and community benefit is derived out of these schemes. My predecessor, Senator Ozouf , set in place the beginning of planning obligation agreements. This is a real opportunity to show just what benefits for the community we can drive out of planning obligation agreements and take the example of section 106 in the United Kingdom. As far as the alternatives available, if we do not approve the rezoning of these sites there is really little alternative to providing the sort of homes that we would wish our

retiring community to live in. There has been issues raised that this, for example, is the result of a restrictive policy on historic buildings, that if we had a more lax policy on historic buildings we would find other existing sites that are far more suitable. However, while I am currently reviewing the historic buildings listing process and will be coming forward with a new listing scheme shortly, that has no effect on this. There are very few listed sites that would deliver the sort of accommodation that we would wish to provide for our retired community. So, in summary, I hope Members will support all the hard work that the Connétable s and the Assistant Ministers have put into this scheme, will accept the fact that there is a consequence, that we are using up some countryside land but it is something that is well worthwhile doing if we are to appropriately deliver the obligations that we have to our retired community. I support the proposition and hope others will do the same.

Senator L. Norman:

Sir, may I propose the défaut on Senator Walker and Deputy Martin be raised? The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on Senator Walker and Deputy Martin? The défauts are raised.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Sir, could I ask the previous speaker to answer a point of clarification. The Minister spoke of brown field sites and in the report agricultural land that has glasshouses built on it is now referred to as a brown field site. Does he maintain a distinction between agricultural land with glasshouses on it, and ordinary agricultural land? Does he think there is a distinction between the 2?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

Sir, I do believe there is a distinction between the 2 and I do believe that we have to come forward with a holistic plan to deal with the issue of glasshouse sites, and I intend to do that as part of the Island Plan review. There is a great opportunity in relation to some but not all of the disused glasshouse sites.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Sir, I did not quite understand the answer completely. Point of clarification. Are all glasshouse sites in Jersey now designated by the Minister as brown field sites?

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The term brown field is not the relevant term. The issue is that all glasshouse sites are being reviewed as part of the Island Plan review process and the Island Plan review will bring forward recommendations as to how each of the sites should be appropriately treated. As far as the Senator is concerned, some sites will come forward with recommendations that they be considered for development, other sites will come forward with a recommendation that they are not suited to development. Quite which one is which I do not know yet. Thank you.

2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

St. Helier is not represented in this current batch of fields for rezoning. That is not because the department did not try and the Assistant Minister worked very hard with the Parish to try to secure a couple, and certainly one site. Indeed one of the sites was approved by the Parish Assembly but subsequently - this is a site up at La Pouquelaye, I think sometimes referred to as the Channel Television site or part of it - this was withdrawn because of pressure from surrounding residents at a public meeting held at the former La Pouquelaye school. So some may argue St. Helier is not contributing any of its agricultural land to this process and, of course, it is often forgotten that St. Helier has a huge amount of agricultural land and, indeed, until recently I think we had the largest herd of cows in the Parish. Sir, that may leave some Members to say why do I stand this morning

to object very fundamentally to many of the proposed rezonings that are put before us. Should I not keep quiet in St. Helier and let the other Constables sort out their own Parishes. I want to say that part of my fundamental objection is that I feel that the Planning Minister is reneging on a very important deal and that deal is if we are going to develop the town as the main residential centre, for all kinds of good reasons, not least because the town needs people to work and to thrive, it needs the life blood of people in it, of all ages and not just certain social types. It needs the community to work. But also because it is sustainable. People who live in town, whether retired or not, do not need a car, they do not need to add to the traffic coming up and down St. Saviour's Hill for example, or indeed any of the other main roads that these sites before us are reached by. So living in town makes sense for lots of reasons. It makes sense for town's own development, it makes sense for the people who live there, who have easy access to all the services they need. The second reason I think, and it is important, is that those of us who live in town have to put up with quite a lot of inconvenience. I am not going to go into all the details now, not even on St. Helier Day. But the fact is there are things we lose by living in town, particularly people who find themselves living in apartments where they would instinctively rather live in bungalows. But they make that decision for various reasons and they choose to live in apartments and we do all that we can in town to make apartment living desirable and comfortable. But these people feel that they have the right to go out of town in the evenings and at weekends and to enjoy what Jersey is famous for, our unspoilt countryside. For me the best route out of town is Trinity Hill. Town is very close to the countryside when you go up Trinity Hill. You are suddenly in unspoilt countryside as you get to the top of the hill. It is for that reason I am particularly sorry to see the Trinity proposals before us today. It does seem to me - and I think one is worse than the other - Field 578, well the notes say it is in a prominent and elevated position. The rural economy strategy group advise it is commercially viable and that it should be retained for the agricultural industry. Transport and Technical Services do not support the development of the site as there is little potential for residents to use methods of transport other than single car occupancy. So Trinity Hill is certainly going to get busier if these 36, I think, houses are constructed on this field. But more important for me as a great lover of Trinity , and I hope the Constable will be pleased of that, it is one of my favourite Parishes to find recreation in when I tire of those various problems that go with town living. I do not want to go to Trinity and find that it is being developed for this kind of housing. I would rather Trinity came to talk to us about how we could provide, in a much more sustainable way, houses for the sort of residents that he is concerned about, because I do agree that people need homes but I do not agree they need homes on a fine elevated field in Trinity which is a very important part of our countryside. [Approbation] I believe the comments I have made apply to other sites as well. Of course it is quite possible -- and I am not going to be so idealist that I am going to vote against all of these sites, some of them fit within clearly defined village envelopes and they should be supported. But how can these 2 glasshouse sites outside the village of St. Mary be considered for inclusion in the St. Mary Village envelope? I really do not see it. The fact they have had a glasshouse on them seems to me irrelevant. If they are no longer needed for agriculture they should go back to being in the countryside. So it does seem to me, Sir, and I am not going to speak at length, that Senator Cohen has a far too pragmatic view of the Island Plan. If a piece of land is donated - and perhaps this also applies to my fellow Constables - or comes at a knock down price, that should not make any difference at all. The key questions are whether developing that piece of land is good for Jersey. I like what makes Jersey different from Guernsey. I like the fact that most of our northern part of the Island is not pepper potted with developments and I think the Senator, as he approaches the next Island Plan, needs to consider how important his principles are. Because if we are going to say that we should focus new residential development in the urban area and in clearly defined village envelopes and village settlements, then we should stick to that. Just because somebody offers us some green fields to develop, which is much easier than brown field sites or town sites, we should not be swayed by that and we should stick to our principles. The Senator also said that there was little alternative to approving these fields. Well, I do not know whether the Senator is missing something but recently we were talking about a whole new potential

development, again it is in St. Helier, but that is where it should be, and we were talking about it down in the harbour area of East of Albert. Lots of potential for fine living down there for people for whom we can make houses. Just to give another little example, it does annoy me when I go around town, I see so many sites which have not been developed. There is one near the Archives Centre which at last has been demolished. But that was derelict for some 10 or 20 years and nothing was done about it. That at last, I believe, is being developed but just go around the corner into Don Road and you get to that marvellous construction, Royal Crescent. I have often wondered why no one has ever suggested that the car park which has been left in the hole there has not been replaced. Why do we not rebuild Royal Crescent? How many houses, how many good residential or retirement flats could we get into that area there? I believe there are plenty of spaces, there are plenty of alternatives, it is simply much easier to develop agricultural land. I would urge Members, as they come to each site, to ask themselves how much of the Jersey that we hold special is being eroded by each of these developments. Thank you, Sir.

3. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour :

Unfortunately a lot of my thunder has been stolen by the likes of Deputy Mezbourian and now the Constable. But what I would like to state, Sir, is I am very disappointed in the Planning Minister and it has to be said, the role - not the energy shown - played by his assistant. The Planning Minister quite rightly is mad about design and constantly quotes international architects but on this occasion, Sir, he has capitulated. When it comes to spatial planning he is not mad about spatial planning and I am very, very disappointed. I have put this to him from the very beginning; why is the Assistant Minister for Planning, who is tasked, as is he, to be the guardian of the Island Plan, why are people in this role going around knocking people up, so to speak, or talking to people and persuading them to provide building plots? I find that absolutely unconscionable, quite frankly, and a total contradiction in terms of the particular role they are tasked to play. I have made this point several times. Obviously I did not get very far. I have made this point to both the eminently nice Minister and the Assistant Minister. I think it is totally wrong and if there is pressure to be placed it should be come from Housing and the Connétable s. They are the promoters and they are the people we expect to be promoting, not Planning who we expect to hold the line on these matters. I totally agree, Sir, with the Connétable and Deputy Mezbourian about the fact that we are chipping away at the countryside when we did have an Island Plan which was meant to hold the line and we have constantly been told, as was one of the big rationales for the waterfront, for example, that we must keep development within the urban areas, partly to keep the buzz in town, so to speak, and partly to keep the countryside pristine. Here we are allowing the very opposite to happen. I do, Sir, have sympathy with the Constables on Parish regeneration, I have heard some very good arguments from the likes of the Constable of St. Martin and Trinity , and it has been very good. But this was never sold - and I notice the Planning Minister never mentioned it - as a Parish regeneration programme. This was sold as an over 55s programme, as I understood it. Well, it came late in the day, Sir, as one of the objectives. The other thing, Sir, I would support the Constable entirely on is the whole issue of allocating fields, if indeed we have to go down that route, is not whether we can find a developer or a seller of fields who will sell them at a reasonable price, thereby minimising the price to the purchasers, because that is not a planning criteria. That was a point made very strongly and needs to be re-emphasised by the Connétable , that is not a planning criteria. Good stuff because the Constables clearly have the local knowledge, they clearly do not want to be involved in brazen developer led projects, so to speak, but it still does not amount to good planning. In fact, Sir, it amounts to the opposite. It was noticeable, Sir, we went to Guernsey last week, we were not involved in spin, a group of Scrutiny went to look at the health insurance scheme and while we were there, Sir, we were introduced to a new employee of their States who has been brought over to do a continuum of care, looking at housing, community provision, and residential and nursing care. The whole idea is to get the whole continuum worked out to look at everything, housing, the whole works, and what was noticeable, Sir, about their approach and as we discussed different approaches is they are not prepared to let this be a

developer led programme. They want it to be very strongly a States led programme based on their analysis of need and their analysis then of  how this need can be provided  for. It was very interesting to see a very different approach being taken. Like Senator Perchard, who again has taken my point, I was very interested in the shifting definition of brown field that has emerged in this debate. We all thought brown field represented an ex-industrial site and we all thought - although we know there are people waiting and waiting for the change to occur - glasshouses were simply agricultural fields from whom the glass was eventually going to be removed to revert to their pure role as agricultural fields. But somewhere along the way a change of definition has occurred. Which brings me, Sir, at a very difficult point, to the St. Saviour proposition. As I have said before, I do support it and the reason I support it is [Laughter] it is in an urban area, you are quite right it is technically a green field [Laughter], technically. It is in an urban area, it fits within an existing urban environment in which there is an infrastructure, there are shops, there are bus services, across the road there is a States development, which, as was said yesterday by our good Assistant Minister, can be further integrated and, Sir, it was the Parish meeting's wish that that go forward but that the other proposal for St. Saviour not go forward. The Parish decided that yes urbanisation had gone on to a great extent in the Parish, they were very worried but they felt there was a need to draw the line to stop the creeping urbanisation between Five Oaks and Maufant. I did support the Cinq Chenes development but for that reason the Assembly itself said it was not prepared to have development past Cinq Chenes and the Planning Department did, to be fair, accede to that. That was why the Parish took a pragmatic line, as I understood it; "yes, we will accept that this fits within an urban context, there is an urban infrastructure but we will not go further beyond Cinq Chenes and try and hold the ribbon development at that point". I did, Sir, perhaps naively, believe in terms of the general projects that have been put forward that this larger project, because it includes a lot of units and it is by far the bigger part of this and it meets the needs of the Housing Minister in that regard, I did think, Sir, in terms of the other developments this would also hold the line. Now this is perhaps naive because we have had an awful lot of holding the line with planning proposals over the years when we have said we will not go any further, we will not break into the countryside any further and we know there has been constant creepage. But I did think, Sir,  because of its  size, because it was properly designed village development, because it was in an urban setting already, because it could plug very easily and help develop further urban facilities and it was near town where a lot of the over 55s tell me they want to be. They want to have access to services, they want to have access to urban facilities, and they are not necessarily as Senator Le Main, or the Housing Minister has kept telling us. I fail to see all these dozens of people who are desperate to go back, there are some but who are desperate to go back to the Parish of their birth. Particularly if it means living in a small community which often isolates them from the kind of services they need and particularly, for example, when they do not have access to a car and they are reliant on public transport. So that is why I did make, quite frankly, that major exception. I thought that by making that exception it could reduce the pressure on the other sites, as well as my thoughts that as a site it has a lot of merit because it is a properly planned programme of the Rowntree kind that the Assistant Housing and Planning Ministers have been promoting. It stops this bitty, fragmentary development which is going on and on and was

never intended to be part of the Island Plan.

Senator M.E. Vibert :

May I raise the défaut on Senator Ozouf and Senator Le Sueur , please? The Deputy Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on Senator Ozouf and Senator Le Sueur ? The défaut is raised.

4. Connétable G.J. Butcher of St. John :

I do not intend to talk about the other sites in this projet because as far as I am concerned if the Constables are happy with them I am happy to give them my support on that. I know in St. John we only have Field 605 but I would like to make the Assembly aware of the saga of Field 605 and 608 which dates back to 2004/2005. The owner of these fields - the family do not sell land normally - was approached while he was in a nursing home. He has since passed away. The owner eventually signed an option deal on the 2 fields because the offer that was being made was substantial, to say the least. He signed this deal with a well-known local developer. So the Parish had no direct involvement with this at all. During the option period the developer drew up plans to build 45 lifetime homes on Field 605 and 608.  This came before a Parish Assembly in 2006. The turnout, as you can imagine, was fairly substantial with building on green field sites. The reason it came before an Assembly is because it was proposed that the Parish may buy some of the homes at a knock down or competitive price. At the Assembly the attitude of the developers when it was proposed before the Assembly was "it is an all or nothing deal". I quote from the Assembly minutes. They stated that it was not viable to build in the one field, i.e. 605. It was suggested at the Assembly that 605 might be acceptable to parishioners as it was already identified as an H4 site and after much discussion the proposition was made to reject 608 and look further into Field 605. This proposition was carried by a majority. The first option deal on this field was due to run out, because it was a 12 month deal. The developer then asked for an extension on the deal, another 12 months because obviously things had not progressed too far. The owner refused to do that unless a substantial deposit was paid, in which case £100,000 deposit was paid on the site. So, they got an extra 12 months which brought them up to November last year, 2007. The developer then had to buy the 2 fields or back out of the deal completely, and not only would he have lost the £100,000 but there would have been a punitive penalty as well. I bear in mind, Sir, that these 2 fields had no planning consent at all and they knew full well from the Parish Assembly that 605 possibly would be acceptable and 608 would not. The developer still went ahead and paid £1 million for these 2 fields and on that basis, Sir, I have to wonder what signals are being given to developers from the

Planning Department [Approbation] because that is a very risky thing to do, in my opinion, Sir. Soon after the deal was concluded the developer approached me and asked if I would support first- time buyers on 605 and he would give the Parish Field 608, but, of course, we would have had to develop it then for lifetime homes, which the Parish rejected that. One thing that is in the report here from the Planning Minister, in the last paragraph I am quoted as stating that we did not need retirement homes but we did need first-time buyers. It did not relate to this site, Sir. This was other areas that I would look at within the Parish. Sir, I put out a call in 2007 in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) looking for people that wanted to retire and come back to the Parish of their birth or where they had strong connections. I had only 4 people extra to go on our waiting list. But at the present time we have 70 people on our waiting list for rental and 5 or 6 people that would be interested in purchasing long-life homes in the Parish. At the present time we have 22 units in the Parish, 4 of which are bed sits. We have managed to vacate those and we are converting those into one bedroom units. We had permission to do that, Sir. I recently wrote to everybody on our waiting list asking how many would be prepared to move immediately into homes that we had available. I had 5 replies saying that they would move immediately into things that we had got available, so I think, Sir, in summary we can probably accommodate the Parish need for lifetime homes for rental. What I would like to do, in summary, I am prepared to support field 605 in this projet but only if some assurances come from the Planning Department, and I would like those assurances today or I will not support and I would ask the Assembly not to support it either. I would like an assurance today from the Planning Department that only 16 homes will be built in 605 unless there is some consultation with the Parish and we can change it, possibly. I do not want to end up with a situation where we have 24 being crammed into a small field. The other assurance I would like today is that field 608 will not be included in the next Island Plan coming up because I think that that is the game that the developer is playing and I would not support that, Sir. So I hope

the Assembly will take note of that and we will wait for the summing up of the Assistant Minister. Thank you, Sir.

Senator W. Kinnard:

I wonder if I may ask a question of the Attorney General. I have had some concerns hearing that particular speech in respect of perhaps the legality or the vires of money exchanging hands in terms of reserving fields for this development. It was not clear from the speech as to exactly what the goings on were behind that, Sir, but I wonder whether it is a matter that the Attorney General might be prepared to look into and perhaps give us some advice later on today.

Mr. W.J. Bailhache Q.C., H.M. Attorney General:

I was interested to hear the speech of the Connétable of St. John. I think an investigation of the kind that the Minister for Home Affairs is requesting me to make would take longer than the day, and I would need to see quite a lot of documentary material. But it may be appropriate, nonetheless, to say to Members that it seems to me that what we are concerned with today is a proposition based on planning principles and Members should be very keen to distance themselves from anything which involves economic considerations or particular developers.

5. Connétable D.F. Gray of St. Clement :

I am very pleased to be able to stand up and say that St. Clement for a change supports the inclusion of field 274 in this proposition because I have spent at least most of my 5, 6 and a half years as Constable in resisting any development in the Parish, whether it is on greenhouse sites or gardens or in green field sites. So I am very pleased to say that we would like the Assembly to support us and pass 274. It has already been stated that it has many advantages. It is not a green field site, I emphasise that; it already has greenhouses on it. It is on a very good bus route and a very good bus route both winter and summer. There are regular buses right up until late in the evening and it is fairly near to a supermarket. But I think more importantly for St. Clement is that it is supported by all its neighbours. All its neighbours have signed the petition to say that that is what they would like on the site, so I ask this Assembly to support 274.

6. Deputy I.J. Gorst of St. Clement :

Nice to be able to follow my Connétable . Yesterday I was accused of being an old man. I am not sure if that gives me a unique insight into this proposition or perhaps I should be declaring a conflict. Western society does not always treat its elderly with respect and the care and deference that I believe it ought to. Other societies do; perhaps if we looked to the east and see how the Chinese society looks after its elderly and cares for them, provides for them, and they are an integral part of community life and of family life. As I said, Sir, I feel that we perhaps can learn something from these other societies and now is a good time to ensure that when we are providing homes for the elderly among us, that they are the very best and meet the very highest standards possible. It should not be that when one reaches one's later years that one should feel that one is a nuisance or that one should settle for second best. So, Sir, lifelong dwellings, homes for the elderly, what ought they to look like? Well, I believe that they should be extremely well spaced, almost if we had the land they should be in a park-like setting. They should be spacious inside. I believe they should have at least 2 bedrooms. Why should the elderly not be allowed to have visitors to stay like the rest of us do throughout our lives? Why should they not have space to allow their grandchildren and children to visit when they wish to? Ideally, elderly units to my mind should be in sufficient number to allow for a warden and to allow for a warden's unit to be provided from the income of the units. They should, of course, be near to facilities, shops, post offices and, as much as it pains me to admit, probably on a good public transport route. I shall return to that, being one of my bugbears, Sir. They should be comfortable and peaceful environments. I note from the Planning Department's list of requirements in appendix 3 they also state that it is Planning's belief that there should be provided community facilities or a community room and I certainly would support that. So, let me turn to the site in St. Clement. As the Connétable just informed the Assembly, St. Clement has been trying to develop sheltered housing for what I believe is certainly throughout the Connétable 's term of office but for prior to that as

well, I believe 10 years or even more. Now, whilst the site in St. Clement does not necessarily meet my own list of requirements for sheltered housing, it does meet some of them and it has been, I think, crucially supported by a Parish Assembly. It is supported by the Connétable and, as I understand it, supported by the other Parish representatives, even though it may not be the ideal site and meet, as I just said, the list of the ideal requirements. I would like to turn, Sir, to some of the comments that Deputy Huet made yesterday regarding the taxation of development profits or landowner profits when land has been rezoned and make this point. When we as a Parish say we are looking for a suitable site, a number of fields were brought forward and a number of fields ultimately were rejected, with this particular site being chosen by the Parish. The reason I mention that, Sir, is because one of the fields, while it would not have been the subject of taxation, it would have provided the Parish with a workshop which would have been large enough to house the Parish float. It would have provided a car park to alleviate some of the problems with parking along the inner road by the church. It would have provided ample green space and community space. In actual fact, these facilities would have been of greater value than any form of taxation that might have been proposed or outlined by the Deputy yesterday as her preferred choice of extracting value from these sites. Unfortunately, that site was not chosen, Sir, but there we are, that is democracy in action, as they say. I would now like to talk for a few moments about the process. A number of Members have derided this particular process, how we have to decide on these fields and the process by which we have this proposition before us today. I am not one of those Members, Sir. In fact, I would like to congratulate the Assistant Minister for Planning and, I understand, the Assistant Minister for Housing for the approach that they have taken to this rezoning. They have sought the blessing of the Connétable . They have sought the blessing of Parish Assemblies and they have sought the blessing of the neighbours. Why do I say that I support this? Well, it has been a view long held in my Parish, Sir, that we have been victimised by recent Island Plans that .. I am being told "targeted", Sir, but I think we certainly feel like we have been the victims even if it was a targeted approach. We have felt that other Parishes have certainly not taken their fair share of development, be it necessary or unnecessary. Therefore, I am grateful for those rural Parishes who, from where I am standing, at long last have seen the need to reinvigorate their Parish life and their community life. Perhaps they are not proposing lifelong dwellings or dwellings for the elderly, but they are proposing dwellings for first-time buyers and I congratulate them for bringing

forward these sites and taking some of their share of the burden of development. The other reason that I welcome this particular approach is because I believe that the Planning Department have set a precedent. Why am I so delighted with the precedent that has been set? Well, this is the reason, Sir. I am already aware of a number of landowners in the Parish of St. Clement who are currently and have been writing to the Planning Department getting a little bit excited and hot under the collar, hoping that their particular field might be brought forward in the new Island Plan when it takes place. Sir, I will be against those sites, as I have been against inappropriate development in the Parish since my election, but the reason I am pleased with this approach is because I believe that any future sites that might come forward or that Planning might propose for the Island Plan development will also have to now have the support of the Connétable , the support of a Parish Assembly and the support of the neighbours of the surrounding sites. I believe that finally we might be getting to a point where the .. may I refer to them as such, Sir, the small man, the person that is most affected by development's voice, starts to be heard and starts to be able to influence the Planning Department and planning decisions to stop what, in my opinion, has been some of the most inappropriate development. Sir, I return now to a theme that a number of Members have spoken about, and that is that field such and such or site such and such is not suitable because it is not on a good bus route. I have long felt that that argument was absolutely madness because it is within the power of Transport and Technical Services or this Assembly to decide where buses will route and where they shall go, and surely the more important thing is to get the .. I see the Assistant Minister saying: "It is all about money", well, indeed it might be but surely the most important thing is to find appropriate sites and appropriate development, and if those sites are appropriate then we must run public transport to those sites and not the other way round. It seems that we are making large decisions because there might be a small bus route which costs us a few thousand pounds a year, but we are making millions of pounds' worth of decision based upon whether a bus happens to go anywhere near or past our front door. Sir, it seems to be a chicken and egg situation and it is totally, to my mind, inappropriate that we should be making those large decisions based upon what are relatively small decisions. So, Sir, providing the Connétable and the majority of Deputies support the particular sites - and we have heard over yesterday and today that it appears that most of them do - then I will be doing that also. However, I must say that when the planning applications are submitted I will be studying them and scrutinising them to make sure that the department's own list of criteria for lifelong dwellings is met. If it is not met, Sir, at that point I will reserve the right to oppose the particular developments. But today, Sir, as it stands I will be supporting this rezoning proposition. Thank you.

Male Speaker:

Could I raise the défaut on Senator Syvret, please? The Deputy Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree to raise the défaut on Senator Syvret? The défaut is raised. Deputy Power?

7. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

There is a view out there with the public and the public are struggling to retain this view that the Planning and Environment Department is the last bastion of protection for the fabric and the countryside of the Island. It is with that in mind that I say this morning that I have some reservations about this proposition. My main reservation is that we are doing it outside the scope of the Island Plan. We are doing it outside the scope of the Island Plan Review, which I have a problem with. At the beginning of this year, the Housing Sub-Panel did look at this in some detail, even though the particular sites that are referred to in the plan were not referenced at that stage. We did do a fairly detailed critique and I just want to quote very briefly from what we said. What we said was: "The sub-panel wishes to stress that it wholly supports the aim of providing suitable accommodation for people as they grow older and their lifestyle and expectations change. However, it also believes that the current initiative is in some ways a return to the bad old days and bad old ways when the States worked in an ad hoc fashion bypassing established policies, taking important decisions based on what was then inadequate information and without a clear vision. Time and again the Assembly has stated its wish to see policies properly scrutinised." We also made the following comments that: "The Planning Minister's and the Assistant Minister's action in actively supporting the rezoning of new sites were not consistent with the existing 2002 Island Plan and are probably prejudicial to the review." We also said that: "Harnessing departmental influence on behalf of individual developers' projects is inappropriate and has the potential to undermine public trust in the planning process." Sir, I find it difficult to speak when there is a lot of muttering going on to my right. Thank you. We also said that: "The selection of sites in some Parishes rather than in others appears to be based on convenience and availability rather than any other recognisable plan." So those were some of the comments we made in February of this year and we have now come to a situation where we are asked this morning to support specific sites which has been taken outside the scope of the existing 2002 Island Plan and has been shoehorned in before the review of the new Island Plan. When we look at the figures that are being proposed, we see that - and I am going to analyse these briefly - if I run through the allocations of developed units in the sites, in St. Saviour we are talking about 178 units of accommodation, 98 open market and 80 social rent. We are looking at 34 in La Lourderie, St. Clement . We are looking at 16 in St. John.

There are 33 in St. Mary, but that is a mix so I have assumed 11 would be for over 55s, or 8 on the site of Maison St. Brelade, 20 in La Maltières, Grouville , 12 on field 818 in Trinity and 36 as a split development in Trinity on the other site, which is site 578 but I have assumed 50/50. So the yield on this plan is 178 units of development. Now, if we add to that what is being proposed at Belle

Vue, that is another 100 2-bedroom units of accommodation. We are up to 300 units of accommodation for the over-55s, which is outside the Island Plan. There are one or 2 other niche projects which are being developed such as Westmount, which I know is a number of years down the line but what we are being asked to do this morning is approve almost 300 units of accommodation which is outside the Island Plan. I have a problem with stepping outside the Island Plan. I have heard the Housing Minister say that there is a perceived need and there is a large pent- up demand for accommodation for the over-55s and I do not deny that, but if we turn to the Housing Needs Survey that was published in April - and I quote very selectively from that - the Statistics Unit have said that the maximum number of units that we need over a 5-year period, and being very generous and factoring in some known reductions in current supply, a total shortfall representing the upper band of up to 400 dwellings for older persons accommodation becomes apparent. We are doing that now outside the existing Island Plan and the proposed Island Plan and I think that is a serious issue. There were some excellent points made yesterday by Deputy Duhamel and Deputy Mezbourian and I do not intend to repeat that, but I am uncomfortable with what we are doing today. It is like as if this proposition has been taken this morning and it almost needs a kind of a fluffy pink toy on it which is sort of: "Hug me, adopt me and like me." I am just wondering where the fluffy toys are that we have not been given with this proposition. In one fell stroke we are stepping outside the boundaries of the Island Plan and we are, in my view, compromising the review of the new Island Plan. I think that is an issue that Members individually will have to decide this morning when they press their buttons. I also agreed with what Senator Perchard made a reference to, brown field sites. I was taken to St. Saviour about 2 months ago and I saw a completely rejuvenated field that had glasshouses and greenhouses on it and had been returned to agriculture. So when we are dealing with definitions on brown field sites or ex- glasshouse sites or sites that are not suitable for return to the agriculture industry, there is a slide rule out there and the rule is sliding. We have issues with that and I do not think the case is proven. Likewise, we have other issues on if we develop these over-55 housing units, if somebody who is between 55 and 95 buys this unit of accommodation and becomes deceased and they want to pass it on to one of their family who is under 55, there appears to be an issue with that. Some of the developments that are being targeted or being selected in this proposition are very land hungry. They are single storey units of accommodation and that is extremely land hungry on an Island where land and countryside is a very scarce resource. I use as a gauge for the developments of these sites the excellent work that has been recently done by Property Holdings that the elected members for St. Brelade, I think the Housing Minister and Assistant Minister were shown recently, and it was a feasibility study into the proposed Belle Vue development at St. Brelade . It is the second reworking of this scheme and on that site Property Holdings have reworked the original figures of a year ago and they have come up with a possible yield - it is by no means definitive yet - of 100 2-bedroom flats of 85 square metres on that site and with onsite parking. I must say that to look at what Property Holdings have done and what they have included in the development is to me the way we should be going with sheltered accommodation and housing for the over-55s. For instance, they have absorbed B.R.E.E.A.M. - and B.R.E.E.A.M. is not a fish, B.R.E.E.A.M. is Building Research Establishment and Environmental Assessment Methods - sustainability issues and they have at least assessed that it could go to level 3 and perhaps go to levels 4, 5 or 6. I would like to say that when these Parish projects come out of the fields that this kind of sustainability is included in the detailing of that and I would ask the Planning Department to make sure that we incorporate somewhere between 4 and 6 of B.R.E.E.A.M.'s sustainability codes when we come to that. So, we are asked this morning to support what is a perceived need for sheltered housing for the over-55s. We are asked to support a project which takes almost 400 units outside the Island Plan and shoehorns it into a situation where we are now before the revision of the Island Plan is complete and the selection process of some of these sites is, in my view, not acceptable. However, we are between a rock and a hard place and I will wait to hear what the Assistant Minister's summing up is likely to be, but I find this a difficult one because I am uncomfortable with the challenges it has placed for the Planning and Environment Department. I hope Members think long and seriously about this. Thank you.

8. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier :

The previous speaker said this is a difficult one. As one who sat on Planning for 3 years at the time of the Island Plan and doing the new Planning Law from 64 to 2002 that took to 2005 to be implemented, I can assure him it is difficult because we are dealing with people and we are dealing with lots of people. In the old days in the country we had from the large farmhouses to the ordinary sized farmhouses and we had the dower and we had the family, and the family was also part of a bigger family, which was the Parish family. They looked after each other and they looked after their young people and they looked after the old people. The old people used to baby-sit the young people and so you did not need to have people living in outside homes, whether they are independent homes, nursing homes or the like, unless of course they were very bad. In town you had the townhouses which also had facilities for independent living and, again, provided the ground floor or the basement for the eldest ..

The Deputy Bailiff :

One moment, Deputy . I think we have just dropped below our quorum. Is it 27 or 26? Deputy Duhamel is behind there. Sorry, Deputy , yes.

Deputy J.B. Fox:

That is all right, Sir. Of course, the world has changed since then and during the time that we were concentrating on the Island Plan in what is only 5 years ago was the fact there was an urgent need for first-time buyer houses, for argument's sake. But there was a recognition that part of providing first-time buyer houses was releasing properties for more substantial families so that we could fill the gap of having 3, 4 and 5-bedroom houses, which again was an important cycle. People needed to downsize and so even at that time, although there was a lot of land set aside for first-time buyer houses, it was recognised that sooner or later we would have to be providing lifelong homes and the sheltered accommodation and over-50s accommodation. It was recognised that all this had to be done constructively and I too prefer things done all at the same time. Having said that, as we know when we are in the States here, that is not always possible to achieve for varying reasons. But one of the things that we must realise is that with times changing that we have now a waterfront that is going to hold 900 units of accommodation, some of which will be family accommodation, some of which will be taken up by people that are downsizing or retired or lifelong, et cetera. They will provide a large bulk facility, et cetera, and we are told it is designed also to reduce the pressure on our countryside and we are very proud in Jersey of having our countryside. If you look to our sister island, I think over the years our planning considerations have worked out better than possibly what theirs have in a way. But, and this is the but, we still are dealing with people. People are talking about that we must put things in denser and we must have it rise higher, et cetera, but it is very hard for especially the older person that has been brought up in a semi-rural environment to be persuaded to go and live in a 6-storey block of flats where they do not know anybody and there is no community and we expect them to be sat there. There are areas around St. Helier , especially on the outskirts and, indeed, in the density, where people are very lonely. They have no community whatsoever. They do not know anybody. They do not feel as though they are part of a community. That is a reflection that we constantly build things to the absolute maximum, but what we forget about is the community spirit and that people are people, they want to live .. People are getting busier now and they are not going to visit their relatives or their relatives are not as important as they used to be. We have to reverse this trend. It is very important that we reverse this trend. I see it starting to happen, but it is probably going to take another couple of generations before it matches. Pillar Close, for argument's sake, and Hodge, which was the nurseries, have single units of accommodation included within the house that the mother or father, the widow, even their teenage child, can be accommodated within a little independent unit of an envelope of a house. Now, that is good forward thinking. It is adaptable. We tried to encourage this while we were on Planning. There is only one problem. Some people put in an application that: "I want to put a dower on the end of my house to house my dear mother or my dear father" and we give permission. Some honour it, and some immediately throw mother and father out and go and rent if off because it pays the mortgage. That is what happens in the real world, but it does not mean to say that we are going to say: "Oh, we are not going to continue with this policy." What we have to do is make sure that we can close up some of the loopholes so that some of the intentions are still there. We also have to recognise that the developers have a human right. The Constable of St. Helier was referring to the site at Channel Television. Now, when it came to the Town Hall , you had 2 sites, one in the built-up area on the Channel Television site, and one next door which was a huge great big green field site. But the green field site can only be accessed through the Channel Television site. Now, originally when that came up to first-time buyers, the 2 sites were together and they were all for first-time buyers. Now at the Town Hall the same architect, who was a Guernsey man, I think, represented both lots of owners and said: "That is not a problem. The site on the front, the Channel Television site, can be for first-time buyers and the green site would be for first-time buyers and lifelong homes." The Parish Assembly said yes. By the time it got to the planning stage, you cannot have the Channel Television site because it is already a built-up area and the developer can build whatever he likes on it and it is not the same developer and, therefore, we will build category (b) housing, which is not what it was meant to be there for. This is where the problem lies. You get 2 lots of different stories at different assemblies or different places when the residents are being consulted and that is probably why it is not here today as part of .. [Interruption] Someone donating £10, are we? The Attorney General.  [Laughter] You are innocent before you are guilty, Sir, but someone is guilty.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do we have an offender or not? [Interruption] Deputy J.B. Fox:

Never mind. Back to the subject, I am not going to quote Parishes because it is not fair, but there are some absolutely excellent developments that are being done by the Parishes or through the Parishes and they should be very much commended for it. But I always remember while we were looking on Planning at the sheltered homes in St. Martin and the Constable was challenging why the Planning Department wanted chimneys put on it. The Constable of St. Helier I think at the time, which is not this Constable, was saying: "They cost £15,000, absolute waste of money." Well, the houses were built and they had chimneys, like the ones in the Parish of St. John. Everybody moved in and everybody kept complimenting the Constable how wonderful these houses were, they felt like they were homes and they were pleased to be able to enjoy their retirement. The Constable made a point of coming up to me and my fellow members of the Planning Committee individually telling us how pleased he was that we stood up for wanting the chimneys because it had gone down extremely well and it was worth every penny. So sometimes you can get it right, which is rather pleasing. Today, yes, it is outside the envelope of the new proposed Island Plan, but this is one that has been brought with a lot of support by the Planning Ministry and the officers - and I congratulate them all - and the Assistant Ministers who have done a tremendous amount of work in their public consultation and support. I think that this proposition with all its different Parishes deserves our support. The areas that there are concerns, obviously these were fully discussed and each individual Member can draw his or her conclusions and vote accordingly. But we have to bear in mind we are talking about people and people are very important. If they are going to have the opportunity to spend their retiring years back in the Parish that they loved and had not been able to before and have this opportunity now to go back into a community, let us make no bones about it, they might live in sheltered accommodation or they might live in .. sorry, in rental or the last time buy, but they do need to be part of the community. The community does need them as well. They provide a useful lift to give the quality of life and

we need all generations to do this. So, Sir, I am not going to repeat what a lot of other people have said, but in general I agree in principle. There is still a discussion to go, so I shall wait until the end of the debate, but in principle I am in favour of what has been said. It has been done by the community and it is being done with a lot of consultation, which must be commended. Thank you, Sir.

9. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier :

I would like to start by saying that Deputy Pryke, Assistant Minister for Planning, cannot be accused of not consulting with the public in the Parishes over this proposition. I find this quite frustrating in that I had the misfortune to be on the committee that had to go through the torturous process in this Assembly on some of the H2 sites: Jambart Lane, we had the site in St. Peter, site down at Goose Green. Even though a democratic decision was taken in July 2002 on this rezoning proposition, we did face great difficulty in trying to get these sites through the planning process. So the one valuable lesson I learnt from that was how important it was to have the Parishes on board. So it was when the new House met back in 2003 and the Housing Minister and myself started talking to the Planning Minister and his Assistant on how we were going to provide these homes that we knew were needed, particularly for the elderly, that we decided that the best way forward was to go to the Parishes, have the Parishes completely on board, do it in conjunction with the Constables because, after all, I think most Members will agree that we feel that the Constables know what is wanted and what is needed in their own Parishes. So, that is why we undertook the process in that way. But it seems to me, listening to this debate, that even though the Planning Assistant Minister has gone away and taken that on board, there is still criticism being meted out for the process that has been followed. I accept that this is being done outside the Island Plan Review, but the reality is we need these homes now. My understanding is that the earliest the Island Plan Review is likely to be implemented is 2010, which would probably put the nearest development away to about 2013. It is just simply too long. We need these homes now. Even if this proposition is approved today, it will still be 3 years before any keys fit into any doors. To be quite frank with you, I find it difficult because almost on a daily basis I receive telephone calls from people either on the transfer list with the Housing Department or on the waiting list wanting to know when they are going to be housed. These are elderly people and a lot of elderly people in the private sector. I find it really, really difficult because I cannot give them an answer. It is a real problem. So I would say we have learnt from the previous rezonings. We have gone to the Parishes. We have spoken to the Constables. I attended all of the .. barring one, all of the

meetings that were held in the Parish Hall s. We took on board what the parishioners said to us. Certainly in St. Saviour we took 3 sites to the Parish Assembly. There was concern about 2 of the sites expressed at the Assembly and we withdrew both of those sites from this proposition. We did the same in St. Helier . We withdraw a site in St. John and also St. Clement. So nobody can accuse us of not listening to the views of the parishioners at those Parish Assemblies because we did. The site at St. Saviour, as Deputy Le Hérissier has quite rightly said .. and I know some people laughed at him for this because on the one hand he was saying he did not agree with development on green field sites but, on the other hand, he did agree with the site at St. Saviour. Members did laugh at him in the Assembly and I understand his arguments. The site in St. Saviour, I believe, is eminently suitable for housing. It is surrounded by development on all sides. It is on a bus route, it is near the shops, and I cannot think of any other site on the Island that could deliver the number of units that is proposed for this site. I think it is an absolutely fantastic opportunity. The fact that the Parish will benefit from this development by 30 units is an absolute bonus; it is a gift. I think the Constable of St. Saviour said yesterday that it is worth in the region of £4 million. I do not believe people should turn their nose up at that. I am assuming that all the Deputies in St. Saviour - we have certainly heard from 4 so far - support this site. I cannot imagine for one moment that there can be any Deputy in St. Saviour who could not agree to this site, and by going against the wishes of the Parish Assembly ..

Deputy A. Breckon of St. Saviour :

We did not have a Parish Assembly. Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Well, I was certainly at St. Saviour Parish Hall with the Assistant Minister for Planning. It was a very, very well attended meeting. [Interruption] Right, okay, but the unanimous view that came out of that meeting was that they agreed with that development and the 2 sites that concerns had been expressed about, the Assistant Planning Minister withdrew from the proposition. So, make no mistake ..

Senator J.L. Perchard:

On a point of order .. I thank the Deputy . I was at that meeting, not being a parishioner, but I did speak and that meeting clearly supported some development there, but that meeting clearly supported development for retirement homes, may I remind the speaker.

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

They are retirement homes. The St. Saviour site is a retirement village in its entirety. If I have the figures right, it is 90 lifelong homes on the open market, 80 [Interruption] .. Either way, it is just under 200 units specifically directed at the elderly, so I would correct the Senator there in his misunderstanding of the situation. The Senator was intimating that it was not as I was saying. The other sites that have been consulted on - and I know there is a degree of concern by Members of some of the sites in the proposition - I do support all the sites because I do support the Parishes. Trinity has been mentioned. If we want our Parishes, our country Parishes in particular, to survive, we need to have some regeneration of these Parishes. If we are not going to introduce any new housing and specifically for first-time buyers, young families, then the reality is our Parish schools will close in the future. Make no mistake of that. The schools are already reducing their numbers. Certainly I know in St. Helier, but I have been told outside of St. Helier as well, the intakes are falling. So we will come to a point at some time in the country Parishes, if there is no regeneration, where we may lose our Parish schools. I do not believe for one moment that that is something that Members would like to see,  [Approbation] so there has to be some Parish regeneration sympathetically done. The housing proposed in Trinity is right on the main road, near the church, near the pub, and right near the shop: perfectly placed. I am not going to comment on all of the sites in the proposition because the individual Constables have stood up and fought their own corner. I would just appeal to Members to listen to the Connétable s and support them on their individual sites. I think there was some mention earlier about the specific criteria for lifelong dwellings. The Assistant Minister for Planning and myself have visited the U.K. (United Kingdom). We have gone to the Rowntree homes; picked up some very, very good information; looked at some absolutely brilliant schemes. The criteria that is being laid down in this proposition I think are going to produce homes that people are going to want to live in. I am excited by this proposition. It is going to provide homes for those elderly people that are waiting to be housed and