States Meeting Transcript - 13/05/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 13th MAY 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION..........................................................3

1. Millennium Town Park: commencement in 2010 (P.42/2010):amendment (P.42/2010 Amd.) - resumption.......................................................................3

1. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:.........................................................3

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ....................................................................5
2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:..................................................6
3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:...........................................................7
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...............................................................8
5. Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General..............................................9

7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................10
8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................15
9. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................16
10. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:......................................17
11. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................17
12. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................20
13. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................24
14. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................26
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................27
16. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:..................................................27
17. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin:.......................................................28
18. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:..................................................28
19. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:..............................................................29

2. Millennium Town Park: commencement in 2010 (P.42/2010) - as amended..........33

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................33
2. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................34
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................35
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................35
5. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................36
6. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................36

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................37 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................38

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption..............................................................38

7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................38
8. The Connétable of St. Helier:...........................................................39

2. The Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority: Proposal to Grant a Postal Operator's Licence (P.44/2010) ......................................................................42

2.1 Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................42

1. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................43
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................44
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................45
5. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:......................................................45

6. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................46
7. Deputy J.A. Martin:....................................................................46
8. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................46
9. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................47
10. Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:..................................................47
11. Deputy I.J. Gorst :....................................................................47
12. The Deputy of St. Martin : ...........................................................47
13. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................48
14. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................48
15. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................49
16. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................50
17. The Solicitor General:...............................................................50
18. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................50
19. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................51
20. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................51
21. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................51

3. Jersey Child Care Trust: appointment of Chairman (P.47/2010)......................53

3.1 The Deputy of St. Ouen (Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):..................53

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................53
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................53
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................53
4. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................53

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................55

4. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary (Chairman of Privileges and Procedures Committee): ............................................................................55

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................55

[9:31]

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – RESUMPTION

1. Millennium Town Park: commencement in 2010 (P.42/2010):amendment (P.42/2010 Amd.) - resumption

The Deputy Bailiff :

The States now resume debate on the amendment to P.42.

Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour :

May I declare an interest in this because I own a property that affronts it and I understand the value of that property could be affected by decisions here?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Very well. I have no notification here of Members wishing to speak but does any other Member wish to speak?

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

I think I would like to start by not challenging but questioning where Deputy Duhamel was coming from yesterday. [Approbation] I was just slightly mystified at his contribution to the debate. As one of those people who took part in the collection of the signatures at the time, what was said to us when we were collecting the signatures was that all the people who signed the petition, and it was 16,000 plus, agreed there should be a park across the whole site. They did not want development on the site; they wanted a green park across the entire site. But the people who lived within the vicinity of the park and used it for overnight parking and the shoppers and the commuters wanted somewhere to park. So it was not a question of it had to be underground at the town park; they just require parking somewhere within the area so that they did not lose out. That really was the crux of it. It was neither here nor there. It was not a question of it had to be underground at the town park, so I have to disagree with the impression Deputy Duhamel was trying to put across yesterday [Approbation] because he was wrong. I think all those who were involved in the collection of the signatures at the time would agree with me. I was there alongside a lot of others who did it and who have been involved right from the very start and knew exactly what the public wanted, and what the public want is a green park across the entire site. I just wanted to get that out of the way first. The Chief Minister mentioned yesterday that the States had agreed previously to a park across the whole of the site which they indeed had but he felt that the Council of Ministers had to balance the demands for social housing, parking and open space in the area. I agree there are demands for all of those but I believe that those demands can be accommodated elsewhere which I will come on to in a short while. So I do not accept that the only way that those demands can be met is by building on the town park; I do not agree with that at all. He also said that he did not believe that building on the town park would delay the delivery of the park. I simply cannot accept that. Last year, when it was decided at a public meeting that the Minister for Planning and Environment attended at the Town Hall when the subject of Ann Court was being discussed, it was then agreed that the Minister for Planning and Environment would carry out a Masterplan of the North of St. Helier. It was suggested that the plan could be delivered in a 3-month timescale. That 3-month timescale has basically turned into a 15-month timescale [Approbation] which we have not even debated yet. So if it has taken us 15 months to get a North of St. Helier Masterplan, goodness knows how long it is going to take the additional health impact assessment which we will need if we are going to build on the site; the traffic impact assessment. So this idea that we can build on the park and it is not going to delay the delivery of the park, I do challenge. If the Chief Minister wants to come back in his summing-up to convince us that he believes that that is possible; I just cannot see it myself. The past 2 days I have spent worrying about this debate and as we have got closer to the debate, the height of my worrying has reached epic proportions because it has been

such a long time to getting here. I realise now we are coming so close to making a definitive decision about whether to build on the town park site or not to build on it and, to me, that is what it comes down to. Are Members going to vote for building on the town park site or are they not? The issue was always the parking. When I was involved in the implementation group in 2005 when the then Chief Minister, Frank Walker , asked me to take this forward, a terms of reference was agreed with the then Council of Ministers that there would be a green park across the entire site. I have struggled since then to understand why suddenly the position was reversed [Approbation] because I believe that if this idea had come out of the Council of Ministers they would have delivered the park but it has been allowed to just drag on and on and on because other things have taken priority. The Waterfront took priority over it; I accept that, but I believe it has just dragged on and on and on. I am going to appeal to the Council of Ministers to try and understand what it is like for those people who live within 400 metres of the town park site. I am going to appeal to those Members who live in country Parishes where they have plenty of space. This is not a town issue versus a country issue. I do not see it as that. I was thinking about this this morning; I like to see Jersey as one big family. We are a small Island, for goodness sakes, we should be looking out for each other's interests but I do not believe that we do, not in a way that we should. This morning I woke very early because I had a bad night, yet again, worrying about what was going to happen today; the decision that was going to be made today. I was out walking my dog at 5.30 a.m. this morning. I went to a green lane where I normally go in St. Helier - and we do have a few - and watched the sun come up.

[9:45]

It was peaceful around me and I thanked God (a) that I woke up and (b) that I was fit and healthy enough to make the walk to where I was going and to witness what I had seen. Then I started thinking about those people who live within 400 metres of the town park site; those young people who are not able to do that and the older people who are not able to do that. So I started thinking about them and their quality of life. I asked the Statistics Unit to provide me with some data to try and get across .. because I am really struggling here. I am thinking to myself: "What can I say to persuade those Members who are not convinced of the arguments; what can I say to get you to change your minds?" This is some of the data that I received from the Statistics Unit. The total resident population within the 400 metre radius of the perimeter of the town park - that is 400 metres (we all probably ran a 100 metre race when we were kids) it is 4 times that 100 metre race that you ran as a child - on March 2001, on census day, was 8,026 people. This represented slightly less than 10 per cent of the total Island population. That is the total Island population lived within 400 metres of the proposed town park and almost 30 per cent of the total population of St. Helier. The total number of households in that area was 3,932 households representing 12 per cent of the total households of the Island. The total number of addresses which includes residential and business was 5,033. That is 5,033 residential and business addresses within 400 metres of the town park. That is a tremendous amount of people who will benefit from this green space. This does not take into consideration all the development that has happened in St. Helier since 2001. We have Berkshire Court which I believe was built in 2001, so it would not have figured in the census at the time. Salisbury Court is currently being built on. I am not going to go through all the sites because 2 Members spoke about all the sites that are in the North of St. Helier Masterplan that are down as residential sites and there must be about 10, suffice to say that the population has increased since that time. St. Helier has the highest population density of any Parish in Jersey; no surprise there.

But when you start to compare a population density as people per square kilometre, in St. Helier we have 2,743 people per square kilometre followed by St. Clement at 1,951 and St. Saviour at 1,343 people per square kilometre. If we look at the age makeup of the people who live within 400 metres of the proposed town park, in March 2001 there were 1,122 children aged 15 years or below and then we have an additional 345 young people aged between 15 and 19. Remember, this does not take into account the new development that has taken place since that time and the proposed

development that the draft Island Plan will be seeking. Of the total adults living within 400 metres of the town park in 2001, 1,244 people were older than 60 years not counting all the new developments since the census has taken place. One other very relevant statistic to come out of the data was the fact that the measure of overcrowding is the number of 2-person households living in one room. In the area within 400 metres of the proposed town park there were 195 households; 14 per cent of 2-person households in that area, that is 2 people living in one room. This was far higher than the Island average where only 4.8 per cent across the Island of 2-person households existed. I do not believe I can put it any more strongly than that to those people who still are not convinced of the need for a green space across the whole of the town park. I just do not think I can say, really, any more than that. All I can do is appeal to those Members who may be teetering on the edge, undecided. Try and imagine what it would be like if you were living within 400 metres of the town park and you have young children or elderly relatives who did not have a car and needed a green space to go to. I just hope that in the seconds that it takes to vote that all the aspirations, the wishes of so many thousands of people and all the people who have fought so hard for the town park are not destroyed in those seconds by Members of this Assembly who really either cannot see, do not want to see, or simply just do not understand the issues. So I would appeal to you, please, to consider in your deliberations of not supporting the Chief Minister's amendment. Thank you. [Approbation]

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary :

Is it in order to urge the Minister for Housing and Minister for Planning and Environment to speak so that we can have their cards on the table in this debate?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Well I am not sure whether it is in order or not but you appear to have done so, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak?

1. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I am really disappointed in the way we are proceeding; let me explain. I was a long-term Deputy in St. Helier No. 2 and I have always 100 per cent supported the town park. I have given it my full support and I continue to do that because I think it is absolutely vital for that part of St. Helier and the community that this park is put in place as quickly as possible. I have to say in all the discussions taking place at Council of Ministers, all Ministers are on board to achieve this park. I see one St. Helier Deputy nodding her head. That is not true. They are all on board to achieve this park as soon as possible. The Council of Ministers have to, as rightly said by Deputy Hilton, balance the needs on housing, open spaces, car parking. This St. Helier Masterplan gives us an opportunity to look right across the board on all the issues in regard to open spaces, housing and car parking. I have a real, real difficulty. Here we are, a year I stand today as the Minister for Housing in real difficulty - I have to say that - in real difficulty over housing, particularly elderly people, the waiting lists increasing all the time. I have the Minister for Planning and Environment and Council of Ministers who are agreed that they would like to see some homes in part of the site and, of course, so would I, because, as I say, my housing lists are increasing and I have a public duty, as we all have in this Assembly, to find affordable homes for Jersey people. But I have to say that the way we are proceeding as an Assembly it seriously worries me that we have an Island Plan in the process of being looked at by the independent planning inspector, evaluated, where one Constable of one Parish who during his election campaign knocked on every door and said: "No more homes. No more homes in my Parish." We have got one of the finest sites in the Parish of St. Clement which would be ideal for sheltered homes, for a new Eastern Good Companions Club, everything, and now I am told that that site is going to be taken out of the Island Plan. I think we are in a huge mess. Our planning is - I am not blaming the Minister - I just think it is a complete and utter disaster as far as Housing are concerned. There are sites, as I say, in St. Clement that could meet the needs of Housing, sites that are highly recommended by the planning officers as one of the best

sites in Jersey. In all the public consultation on the Island Plan, the general public (apart from those who were canvassed by the Constable of the Parish) have no real objections to some development on some old, derelict glasshouse sites that are within the built-up area. As I say, I am dismayed that the Housing Department with our needs are a pawn in the game at the moment and we are in the middle of it. I know Deputy Shona Pitman, for instance, has been recently on to me about some elderly people in St. Helier, disabled people, that need re-housing. I am getting this demand weekly and I just would not like to frighten people to tell them the amount of people that are now waiting to be housed with a view to the economic ..

Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

If the Minister would give way? Do we have a criteria yet for the sheltered housing? Could the Minister explain or do we still have waiting lists in the Parishes and waiting lists in the Housing Department?

Senator T.J. Le Main:

There will be within the Whitehead Report which is being prepared, the report and propositions are being prepared now for debate, and within that report there will be common criteria for all housing and all kinds of social housing and that is, at the present time, being worked on. But the Housing Department has criteria. It has criteria for housing people in need; quite clear and it is quite well understood at the moment. Not ideal but it is quite clear and it is quite well understood at the moment. I desperately want homes and I would desperately accept 80 homes on this site. But I do believe that the North of St. Helier Masterplan should be debated  first. It will give a clear indication, certainly to my department, certainly to me, on where we go in future with development in that part of town. I am extremely concerned that, in fact, the Island Plan, the way we are going, will not even be debated in this session. We have not had one sheltered home built on re-zoned sites in the last 10 or 15 years. Not one on a re-zoned site. As I say, as much as I support 100 per cent this town park, I am still unsure. I am unsure because I need to see the Masterplan debated whether we should be putting homes on there. It may be but I have a great sympathy for the people around there about, as I say, having homes on part of this site. But I realise the great difficulty that the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Planning and Environment have in trying to balance the needs of housing, open spaces and car parking in an area that car parking is so vital. As I say, I am really disappointed at the way we are proceeding. I am 100 per cent on board. I am on board with the St. Helier Deputies and the Connétable s and I really would urge Members that commonsensically it just makes sense that we should at least debate in the next few weeks the North of St. Helier Masterplan. If at that time Members feel that there should not be any homes on the town park, then so be it. I heard Connétable of St. Ouen and I think Connétable of Trinity yesterday saying they had some concerns over it.

[10:00]

But in reality the most commonsensical thing to do is to debate the Island Masterplan and at least we will have a plan that will be approved by this Assembly and then we can move on. I do support the town park 100 per cent for the residents but I would like, at this present time, to support the amendment for the reason that I have explained.

2. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

I have not used these words before, at least not for a long time: I did not intend to speak. [Laughter] But I have been inspired by the last 2 speakers to make a short contribution and I want to console the Minister for Housing and remind him that St. Clement has claimed more than its fair share in contributing to housing the people of this Island and currently there is a plan with the Planning Department for some 42 sheltered houses on a site in St. Clement. We are certainly playing our full part in helping to house the population at all levels, including the social level and in the retirement home level. There is no need for re-zoning of any more sites. But it was Deputy

Hilton's speech which I was very interested in. It was emotional, heartfelt and absolutely genuine. But she mentioned the number of homes that were some 400 metres from the perimeter of the town park and one of the sites she mentioned was Berkshire Court. I started to think about that. Is that really only 400 metres from the site of the town park? It really feels and looks like a lot more. Now it may be 400 metres as the crow flies but certainly not if you are walking to it. I would suspect it is even closer to Howard Davis Park walking than it is to the site of the town park. I do not know; I have not measured it.

Deputy J.A. Hilton:

Sorry, a point of clarification. I was not making the point that Berkshire Court was within 400 metres as such. The point I was trying to make was the sheer amount of new development. I do not know whether Berkshire Court is within 400 metres. The point I was trying to make it is very close but it was the amount of new development within a very close distance of the proposed new development. Thank you.

The Connétable of St. Clement :

I thank Deputy Hilton for that clarification but certainly I got the impression, because she mentioned Berkshire Court in the same breath as she mentioned 400 metres from the perimeter of the town park, she was saying that that was the case. As I say, I suspect it is closer to the Howard Davis Park. But on that basis it may be that open green spaces near to Berkshire Court and other places like that may be of greater benefit than just one large open green space further away from it. So it seems to me now logical that at least we should consider the alternatives for the benefit of the residents of Berkshire Court and in that area rather than jumping in today, I think for a few weeks, before we debate the North of Town Masterplan. It just seems to me logical that we should do that for the benefit of those residents rather than, as I say, just jump into the initial large site.

3. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen :

First of all, let us get one thing absolutely straight, this debate comes down to whether one-seventh, or a vergée, of the area that is identified as being able to be used for a town park should be built on and the benefits that are attached to it. We are not - and I repeat not - saying that the town park should not be provided and we should get on with it as quick as possible. That is the first point. The second point is the decisions and the number of people, I fully understand, 10 years ago or more now wanted a town park. At that time they were only given that choice. They were not given the choice that we a providing them with today which is that we can look at a slightly bigger picture for the whole of that area, look at how we can use public land - and I am going to come back to that - to improve that part of St. Helier not only for the residents in St. Helier but for all of the Island. Because ultimately St. Helier , as much as we have heard it being compared with St. Ouen , I am sorry, it is our town. It is the capital of our Island. As such, it is focussed and delivers and provides business and retail so that all Islanders can come and enjoy and benefit and many other facilities besides. It is interesting that on the one hand we hear the Constable speaking about open spaces, or the lack of them. I would like to remind the Constable, and maybe on another occasion he can respond to this question, whether or not his calculations have included the 17 acres plus of open, undeveloped land - okay, it might be 100 feet above St. Helier but is in the heart of St. Helier - which is the land surrounding the Fort Regent. No one has mentioned that and yet there is that superb area that can be and should be made use of. But, no, let us take the very narrow view and just look at one specific item. Furthermore, the Constable also promotes the idea of open spaces but when it comes to the Parish land it is a totally different matter then. Let us think about what has happened in recent times. Applications have been put in for an area of land owned by the Parish on Westmount. Is it low density housing because the Parish has already got too much housing? No. Fifteen stories; large development: why? Because the Constable recognises that he needs to maximise the use of that land. The whole point behind the North of St. Helier Masterplan and the discussions that we are having about St. Helier and other areas is that we need to not only

look at the uses of public space, public land, but how we can maximise the benefit. Not financial value. That is why we are - and I come back to the point - literally focussing on one-seventh of the overall area that has been spoken about for the town park. The final point that I would like to make which, again, has been avoided by most of the speakers is that the residents in the area include obviously businesses and access to that area as very important. It is all very well to talk about sustainable transport policies and I absolutely support the idea. But - and it is a big but - the reality is that we are a society that enjoys our own independent transport. As we are well aware, the residents already utilise the area to park their own cars. Currently suggestions have been made about parking solutions to the area but I ask if those solutions were practical, why have individuals not already provided those parking solutions? Equally, the residents need access to parking. Shoppers need access to parking if we are going to maintain the businesses in that area, if we are going to have and make that area of town a vibrant part of town which surely has got to be our desire. Now I am not, and I cannot say, that the North of St. Helier Masterplan meets everybody's requirements. I have not had proper time to consider it, to be honest. What I can say is, let us give it a chance. Let us at least properly consider the wider aspects and the opportunities that that plan provides before simply deciding on this particular proposition unamended. Also, on the final point regarding open spaces, I believe that this Assembly and this States has, over many years, invested very, very large sums of public money to improve St. Helier, to provide additional open spaces. We have just enjoyed last weekend the benefit of 2 open spaces down at the Weighbridge: the Liberation Square and recently the Weighbridge Square. Who provided that? Was it the Parish? No. It was the Government, the States, the public as a result of its spare money. Has it benefited the area? Absolutely. Do we want to continue improvements? Yes. Should they be reasonable? Yes. I just ask Members as they consider whether to support the Chief Minister's amendment that they do look, as we are required to do, at the bigger picture.

4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

The Members of this Assembly can have no doubt about my commitment to the town park. In the budget debate I spoke passionately in favour of and voted for the allocation of £10 million. I then spoke about issues of overcrowding, some of the worst accommodation in the Island, the traffic issues, the air pollution issues, the noise issues and the law and order issues. I spoke with unusual passion on that occasion but that has not left me in any way. The town park must be delivered and the work must start straight away and there is no reason why not. It is quite clear that a town park is going to be built on the whole of the Talman area and it is quite clear that there is going to be a town park area on most of the other areas as well; most of the Gas Place area. That is not in any way disputed; there are no differing opinions in relation to that. So that work, particularly the work of remediation of the ground, can start. It should start as soon as possible and we should get on with it and we should have in place, certainly the Talman site, very quickly indeed. I look forward to that and to my colleagues delivering that and will continue to press them in relation to that. But the problem which I have is the wording of the proposition as unamended because it does not just preclude the building of housing accommodation which is highly controversial, it also precludes the building of underground car parking. The effect of the proposition unamended is that there will be a loss of 390 public car parking spaces. Now underground car parking ..

Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier :

I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, if he will give way. I did take advice from the Solicitor General yesterday and I believe that the interpretation that some Members are putting on the proposition is not accurate. [Approbation]. It might be helpful to hear from the Solicitor General exactly what uses will be precluded if the amendment were to be rejected.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Senator Le Marquand, do you wish to continue your speech or do you wish to hear from the Solicitor General first?

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I will very happily give way because this is an important issue.

5. Mr. H. Sharp Q.C., H.M. Solicitor General

May I divide what I am about to say into 2 halves. First of all, whatever the proper interpretation of the original proposition is, it is always open to one or more Members to re-open the debate, to seek amendment or even rescind an earlier proposition. So from a strictly legal point of view the original proposition is not a binding document as such. Insofar as I am being asked to construe the original proposition and as to whether or not it precludes the development of an underground car park, I do not share that view. The background to the proposition was the petition which clearly stated that there was substantial public support for a public town park with underground car park and that is the basis upon which I construe the proposition. It is right, of course, to say that a prospect or otherwise of an underground car park is not expressly set out in the proposition. However, what is said at (d) is that the land should not be used for a multi-storey car park or any other use that would preclude the creation of a public path on the site. In my view, the creation of an underground car park is not inconsistent with (d) because an underground car park still permits the creation of a public park.

[10:15]

If I am wrong about that then it simply means that the States at the time gave no consideration to an underground car park and there is no proposition one way or the other but, as I say, (d), as I read it, does not preclude the creation of an underground car park.

6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence :

May I seek a point of clarification? The Solicitor General, referring to the proposition rather than the petition in part (b), has said that part (b) does not preclude underground parking. Does the wording "and no part of the site should be developed for housing or other uses" preclude development above ground, for example, the example that was used, a toilet block or a small café or something like that on the town park site?

The Solicitor General:

My view is that whatever the correct interpretation of the original proposition is the development of a small structure that you are describing is ancillary to the creation of a park and within the contemplation of a town park.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

Could I just myself seek clarification before I continue with my speech? I have understood that everything that the Solicitor General has said applied to the original proposition of some years ago and not to the proposition now of the Connétable of St. Helier. Can I seek confirmation of that because there was an ambiguity in what he said?

The Solicitor General:

I am sorry if there is any ambiguity, I am talking about the original proposition that goes back to 1997.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

Could I just follow that up? I believe that Deputy Le Fondré was asking about the P.42 and received confirmation from the Solicitor General that ancillary structures such as toilets and so on would not be affected by the proposition.

The Solicitor General:

Yes, I confirm again that, an ancillary structure, I do not see any difficulty.

I will continue now; that has not changed my position at all because, frankly, the wording as we have at the moment is too wide. I am quite clear, even if the Solicitor General had taken a different view, I am going to take a view that it is too wide and it precludes underground car parking. Indeed, parts of the debate that we have had so far have made this particular assumption. That is my problem: that the unamended proposition will remove 390 public spaces. Now we are told that underground car parking as envisaged underneath the park can provide 200 spaces. The fact is that people who live in the area do not just need a town park and need it early, they also need a reasonable parking provision and they need one, not in Green Street, nor in Pier Road, but in the immediate area around. It is very important to many people who live in the town area that they are also able to run a car: single parents who take children to nursery schools and things of that nature. This is a very important issue. I do not want to lessen our enthusiasm for a town park to improve the life of people in that area in one way and then to diminish it in another. I want both the town park and also the underground parking facilities. Now I am frankly unconvinced by the alternatives and somewhat nebulous suggestions which have been put forward as to where that additional car parking to replace the 390 is going to come from. So I am supporting the amendment. However, I have put my colleagues on notice that that does not mean that I am supporting the building of flats on the site. I am not yet decided. At the moment I am probably leaning against it but I am not yet decided. Nor does it mean that I am going to support the North of St. Helier Masterplan as a whole. But what it does mean is that I am continuing to strongly support the town park to be delivered soon but with underground parking facilities.

7. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier :

We have got so much legal advice going around but I think the Solicitor General has quite clearly pointed out that ancillary .. and who is going to deliver a park that does not have a toilet and things like that on it? Sorry, no, not in St. Helier. I have to start as to how we got here. It is 13 years ago in 1997 that P.190 was lodged with all those signatures and we are debating this flat park on 13th May 2010. I hope the third 13 might be lucky for some because there are at least 10 St. Helier representatives, probably a couple from St. Saviour and then as many people as we can muster but I will not hold my breath for that. Before I get into probably having a go at a few people (which they may not like) and it is not normally my style to point out the obvious [Laughter] I would like to congratulate Deputy Hilton on her speech today. It moved me and I have been kept awake at night. I watched the faces as she was speaking. Cynicism on a lot of faces. We are worried about the people who live in this area and I really cannot believe the things that have been said. Let us have it again. Let us have jam tomorrow. We had rows, Deputy Hilton and I, about Ann Court and this is how we got here. We persuaded the Minister for Planning and Environment after a meeting at the Council of Ministers and a meeting at the Town Hall that, yes, the whole lot of the North of Town needed looking at and Hopkins has come up with a vision. A vision. It does not matter which way you vote today, everything in that plan will not be delivered. It will not be delivered. We are here wanting to know: do we have full support of a town park that covers the whole of the area that was put in the proposition? There is nothing in the Constable's proposition to preclude underground parking except I would like to know exactly how much per space it will cost. We do not know and you will not know in June either. A vision. The petition - and Deputy Hilton touched on this - I was out collecting signatures. I stood outside Checkers in St. Saviour. I stood outside right out in St. Brelade at Red Houses. The people who signed the petition then were not concerned about the parking. They had no problem with the parking. The main people who had concerns, yes, were the residents who lived in the area or commuters who used that long-stay private car park. Well the private car parking is going. The private car parking is going. I cannot help but touch on Deputy Duhamel's speech because Deputy Hilton was quite surprised about his speech. Well I will tell you now about Deputy Duhamel: he tried to pull apart the proposition. I had had a bet on him for 4 weeks to bring the proposition P.190 in and said it did not mention underground car parking. The petition did; the proposition did not. He lost. I will not tell you how

much we had a bet on it [Interruption] .. I have not but I have said I will have a cake on it instead. A nice cream one which I can shove somewhere preferably. [Laughter] No, but what Deputy Duhamel wants; he does not want a Hopkins, he does not mind a flat park but he wants 600 spaces of underground parking at least put under it. That will never happen. We have not got the money. The Minister for Planning and Environment is shaking his head. I know Deputy Duhamel very well and in his own words he is very dogmatic. He does not want either of these; he wants his

solution, his version of the underground parking. He believes it can be delivered and he believes it will be a lot cheaper than was quoted 13 years ago, 10 years ago and even what was quoted now. He believes that. So if anyone is under any illusion whether the Deputy did not go to the Isle of Man to deliver that lovely speech yesterday .. well it did not convince me but I am telling you exactly where he is coming from. He wants the Deputy Duhamel version of the town park and the underground parking. So then I listened. I looked the Chief Minister directly in the eye where he found a social conscience yesterday. He now decides we need 80 units of social housing on there. I am only in this House because I fought for social housing 5 years before I got elected and fought all the way along and I have been told: "We have not got the money for it. Trust will deliver." I listened with intent to Senator Le Main, the Minister for Housing. I and Deputy Breckon and others in here begged him not to sell the Sunshine Hotel site which we have spent millions for because it was ideal; absolutely ideal for over-55 housing. It is on a fantastic bus route; it is near the beach. What have we done? We have sold it. Le Coin site right next to Ann Court next to St. Clements is being now sold to Wesley Chapel developers. Not for social housing. So do not come to me and tell me we do not have the sites. [Approbation] Social housing costs money ..

Senator T.J. Le Main:

Can I just explain? I did explain to the Deputy yesterday the reasons the Le Coin site was unsuitable for housing were the difficulties with adjoining properties. She well knows that.

Deputy J.A. Martin:

Yes, and I can explain that. There is some problem with the party wall; the other half is owned by a trust. I will not mention the trust but they provide social housing. It is not being offered to them; it is being offered to a developer who is developing Wesley Chapel. To me it does not make sense. You have the site there; it has been social housing. The Chief Minister - well this was classic - and I do not know why the Deputies all did not stand up and do their dance, he told us even with housing in St. Helier in this highly densely populated area, if we did not understand vergées, and me being a Cockney do not, it will be the size of at least 2 football pitches. Well, let me play football on it because you cannot do that up at Trinity . They get the hump if you go up to Trinity . [Laughter] The poor Constable of Trinity has had phone calls. He has had phone calls; we were on Parish land. How much Parish land does everybody from the Island come and sit on, work on, park on in St. Helier? How much? Deputy Duhamel and others seem to be having a go at the Constable of St. Helier and I know he is big enough to stick up for himself but he does not have a right of reply in this amendment speech. The Constable of St. Helier , against my wishes and many Deputies, has always stood up for the country Parishes. He voted for that bit of land up at Plémont which I have always said St. Ouen has got enough open spaces. I just drove my son up there today; he works on a building site. Once I got through St. Peter I do not think I saw a house again. Great; loads of fields. Do not come to me and say my Constable is being selfish. He is supported. He is saying: "Bring it on. We will take it in the town but give us some open spaces and good facilities." [Approbation] EDAW said Wesley Chapel should be a community centre. Have the high-rise part but have Wesley Chapel. No, we have sold it. The Deputy of St. Ouen after the Constable, I cannot let his speech go without .. he says our Constable is being greedy; he has got a 15-storey development going on at Wesley Court. Well is the Constable and the Deputy of St. Ouen willing to take this housing out there? No, I do not think so. Because our Constable and them, they do not want ribbon development; they do not want to look like Guernsey. Well that is fair enough but we have played our part. He also said have we thought about the area up at the Fort. [Interruption] I

said I must not get too angry but like Deputy Hilton I am so, so wound up that we are here today. He is the Minister for Education, Sport and Culture. If he wants people to get up there very .. you try pushing a double buggy.

[10:30]

Even if you can park in the car park and get to the facilities but if you have to walk from Gas Place to there or the 400 metres around, it is no fun. It is no fun. He talks about open spaces. He has got all the schools under his area; get some facilities open. There are facilities locked up more times than they are open. No, I am sorry. The Deputy of St. Ouen he says we must have the Masterplan because we are going to get more and more spaces in town, not just one open space. Well let me return to Ann Court. Now Ann Court is going to be the cash provider. The cash provider. Now the residents have already given up social housing there. This will be private housing of 120 flats and I do not know if they are 1, 2 or 3 bedroom, encased in a nice open space square. Now, if you think that any of those residents .. and also 450 underground parking spaces. Now, none of the St. Helier Deputies or even the town rejuvenation - and we have been round the residents - they are not too fussed about this. They did not want the multi storey car park stuck right in their residential area. Ugly, horrible, and we have got half the amount because it was up to about 800 or 900 spaces, whatever they say it was now. So this is where the money making is. Nobody is fighting that. This is the catalyst. Ann Court is the catalyst to get the vision started of the North of the Town Masterplan. Nobody in St. Helier is having a problem with that. But please do not tell me that open space will be like a town park to kick footballs about. It will be a nice place for the residents and commuters who work in town to go and enjoy a sandwich, but you will not be able to play noisy ball games. This brings me to the comments .. I love the comments from the Council of Ministers which is on the Millennium Town Park on page 5. This is me being very cynical again: "If a park is designed appropriately, taking advice from architects, not landscape gardeners, not people who design parks, but taking advice from architects and design professionals, there is the ability to create a space which people will spill out into when living there. It will be treated as an extension of their living space." Oh yes it will! [Approbation] If anyone is out there kicking a football, making any noise, they will spill out there very quickly and they will tell them to do one: "Get off of here! Do you live around here? No!" So our 2 football pitches are already down to 1. You put housing on that end to frame it, why can we not frame it with some lovely trees? We are not going to have residents hanging from there, are we? No. I cannot believe that people .. I have got Hansard going back, we are waiting and waiting for the Constable of .. my papers, sorry, I will be one second. I am sorry, because I do not normally speak for long. I have the Constable of St. Brelade: "Parking spaces to be taxed in town" because we have congestion, too much space. The best comment I did hear from the Chief Minister yesterday, he agreed with this: "We have got congestion in town. So put 200 spaces under the park and that will solve the problem." Well, excuse me, I live in the real world, how do you get there? Or is the next millennium? Are we in the flying car business? I mean, we have sky parks. I am sorry, it does not stop congestion. You are putting spaces there, people will be going around and around and around, commuters, not people who want to use the park. The Minister for Treasury and Resources is laughing. I am right. Look at last night, shame in St. Helier, we have social problems. You are cramming, as Deputy Hilton said, kids - these are kids .. Deputy Duhamel thinks that it is an Island project. I agree, it was the Island Millennium project. Well let us forget that. This is a town park, people will use it in the offices but do you think seriously anyone who lives out in St. Ouen, have got a leafy garden front and back and are filled at the back in Trinity or St. Lawrence, is going to jump in their cars and go: "Whoopee, the town park has been built now, let us go! Come on, let us leave our lovely leafy country Parishes, let us go there." It is the size of a football pitch now, but do not go near the other end and do not bring your footballs! There has been much made about this, you are going to hear from probably the Minister for Planning and Environment, he has held back but he privately and he said it on radio: "This will be the best social housing we have ever had. I cannot see a

problem." Well I am sorry, even people who live in social housing do not want people kicking footballs outside. We have got it on all our estates, no ball games. It will also produce, because in 6 weeks time .. and you have really got to understand this and I am so sad that I have heard from the Constables and the Deputies who may be in support, and even Senator Le Main for Housing, who thinks they are going to come up with something different in 6 weeks' time. They do not know the contamination underneath. The only one who knows and has really researched it is T.T.S. (Transport and Technical Services) and the Deputy of St. Mary. But we do know it is there. Start digging down for foundations for housing or underground parking, but if you really want the parking the most expensive 200 spaces .. and do not forget 80, that is one space per flat, one space per flat that they are allowing. No visitors, no visitor parking, one space per flat leaves 120 spaces. Now if that cannot be found over the next 10 years in that area .. and if anyone was listening to my Constable, he has found at least all them, just round the corner they can be done. But then why should we? Why should we? I am on Health, we are trying to get people out of their cars, we should be parking in the peripheries and it should be more residents' parking. I am sorry for the commuters who have to come in to work from their leafy green country Parishes, and they might have to park at Green Street or Pier Road. The top 2 floors of Pier Road are empty all the time. [Approbation] Is it not it a long walk down to your office in Bath Street or King Street? No it is not. It is more convenient though to park at Gas Place and then that is why the Deputy of St. Ouen wonders why nothing has happened. Because the cars are still there and this has always been the problem. But we have overcome that. The North of Town Masterplan, as I say, go back to the money. This is something that the planners of the North of Town Masterplan have come up with and today we are having a fight over an area that is very small in comparison to the amount of people who live there. The Ministers want to make it smaller or they want the debate. As the Constable started yesterday, he said, and he quotes in the comments: "If you do not have the housing and the underground parking you can achieve nothing that Hopkins have put forward in the North of Town Masterplan." This is the biggest load of .. it is a red herring. It is here to make everybody say: "Well, oh yes, we cannot have it." But I have told you what we can have, the only one place even with the other open spaces, Belmont Gardens. Have you ever seen how big Belmont Gardens is? They want to put residential and open, fair enough. They can probably live with it, but do not tell me that you are going to put a nice area, even a paddling pool like they have got up at Millbrook Park. I mean, I have great respect for the Constable of St. Mary but she had to claw on: "Well I could not support this because the Constables proposition goes too far and says there might not be any toilets on there." Well, we have had this cleared up by the Solicitor General. We are not proposing that. We are not even opposing the underground parking, if Planning and T.T.S. are silly enough to want to dig 200 spaces in the most marsh land in the middle of St. Helier , let them get on with it. I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is this housing. Now, you will be back here in 6 weeks' time if you do not support the Constable today and vote down this amendment. Do not believe the hype that the rest of the town plan will not materialise, because the money is there. We have given up Ann Court, we are prepared to have 120 flats on that area, 450 underground parking spaces, nobody is complaining. The architect told me the other day that is the money maker. I asked where the money for the social housing was coming from on Gas

Place. Nobody knows. Why have we not delivered it before? Because nobody has got the money. We are selling social housing sites, not now to trusts, we are selling them to other places. For the Minister for Housing he has in his own hands, he has high rise at De Quetteville Court which is a slum for families. But with vision, and Deputy Le Hérissier has been there and seen it, I have been there and seen it, high rise 24 stories high for over 55s. It has being going for 20 years and there is a waiting list as long as your arm. It is not what you might think, it is communal, they are looked on every day, there is a concierge on the door, nobody gets in. People are waiting to get into this place. Now, De Quetteville Court high rise is crying out for that sort of development. If he was to talk to a partner in crime .. sorry, a housing trust, who has 116 flats, one bedroom, they are there. It needs some caretaking space, it needs some community space and you could have 116 sheltered houses there. The trust would still get their rent, but we could provide a fantastic facility. I could take him there tomorrow if he wants to talk about it. We have been discussing this site for many years, the flats are built but they are not being used to their potential. So I really do, I like Deputy Hilton, and I have spoken a lot longer than her, but she did say it all. We are worried. We do not want to wait any longer. 13 years to the end of getting the petition signed, which took about 18 months, it did not take .. there were people dedicated in the rain standing in all parts in different Parishes getting those signatures. It is the 13th today, this is about who really is in control of this and it does come down to that. Vote for the Council of Ministers, if you vote against the amendment you are voting against the Council of Ministers. No, please remember what this is about. This is about a flat park with no hindrance, as the Deputy of St. Mary said, it has already got good surveillance. People will regenerate. The Constable of St. Saviour said he is conflicted. Property prices will go up and they will improve around the area, but you will have a road in between, it will not be on the park. I will finish now but I would like to leave you with this London Square thought, I mean, I am sure all of us here watch Eastenders and you have got the square in the middle. How many people .. oh, well we have one dissenter and that is Senator Ferguson, well, not a surprise. Senator Ferguson does not know Eastenders and it is an old London Square, it has got a garden in the middle with railings round the edge. But you do not see any people playing in it. You do not see any people playing in it, they sit quietly. They normally meet there when someone has got a problem, it is all very .. you know, it is all a soap opera, as they would say. But we have got a London vision, we must have this park frame, it is rubbish. It is a small, small area. I see the Minster for Planning and Environment making notes. Well, I am sorry, he is not going to convince me and I am sure - and I listened to the Constables yesterday - he will not convince you in 6 weeks' time. He will have no more information for you on the cost, where the money is coming from and how far they are going to dig deep and, my God, what are they going to hit when they start digging? But, as I said, I do not have a problem with the parking. If you want to go underground, go underground. But do not reduce our 2 football pitches to one for public open space because there is lots of things we want to do there. My vision is a very similar vision to

Millbrook Park. [10:45]

I want a water feature there. It might be fountains. But I want a lot there. I want basketball facilities, I want kids to be able to run around, not little kids, not just little kids, all ages. Fathers playing with their sons. It really, really does disappoint me that we are here today, everyone supporting but .. We are fed up with it in St. Helier. The people who signed that petition are fed up with it. We really must get on with this. Yes, just because you employed the architects, as I started, I will say, I agree with their vision but please be under no illusion that to have 80 social houses on the end, and that is what we are being sold .. I will be told: "Oh dear, Deputy Martin, against social housing." No. I have been fighting for, I have been trying to keep sites that we have given away over the last years, nothing has been produced. Do not come to me now and tell me we can only have a park if we do this. It does not wash. It will reduce not only the size, nobody is seeing the people living in these houses will be looking out - and they will be looking out - but they will not be looking out for surveillance, they will be looking out to see what people are doing in front of their houses and they will be moving them on. Even if you can assure me today that it will not, it will be open space, give it a year. Give it a year when the Minister for Home Affairs' police have been called to the site so many times that they say: "Come on, we have got to stop this. We cannot have ball games. Fence if off or keep it quiet." All you will be allowed to do, like in Ann Court Square, you will be allowed to sit and eat your sandwich, which is great. But we not asking for much. I know I have gone on, I am really, really passionate about this, like everybody else who agrees. Today is the day to make your mind up. Do you really support a flat park? Forget about .. there is nothing in the Constable's thing about underground parking. Do you want a park over the whole area, which will probably then give you 2 football pitches and a netball field? But it will give you a good open space because you will be able to use all of it. That is the decision. We will back here in 6 weeks' time and we will be having the same debate if you vote for this amendment. So I really do plead, like Deputy Hilton, please listen. Do not make us go through this again. The people of St. Helier want this open space and they want it as soon as possible. Not in another 13 years' time. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Before we call the next speaker, can I just remind Members not to repeat points too often please, the debate is long enough already. Is there another Member wishing to speak?

8. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that the north of St. Helier needs some regeneration and I have no doubt that this has been the result of an uncoordinated approach to planning in the area and possibly the procrastination of our predecessors, maybe driven by a lack of funding and alternative car parking. I can understand the frustration of the Connétable of St. Helier and the St. Helier representatives, and I empathise with Deputy Hilton's emotions and Deputy Martin's. But we are faced with moving goalposts in that development sites come and go, public opinion changes and of course funding sources come and go. I do take issue with the Connétable 's unwillingness to accept the wording of the petition, which clearly indicated a requirement for underground car parking. But I see little point in going back over old ground. But Members will be aware that my department worked up plans for a multi storey car park on the Ann Court site on instructions from the previous Council of Ministers and these proposals were rejected as a result of opposition from local residents. It was agreed that a North of Town Masterplan be created in order to drive the regeneration forward. I mention this purely to emphasise the point that my department are the builders and traffic engineers but not the designers and architects of a development plan. This is an issue for the Planning Department and for this reason I am far more comfortable with the concept of an overall masterplan by those who are professionally qualified to do one. I would ask, is the Connétable proposing a children's play park, or what? We do not know. Is it a railed park? Is it a football pitch? I would suggest that a play park needs some sort of framing if you are going to prevent footballs flying around. Are we having a paddling pool? A paddling pool will need pumps and such like and while I do not argue with any of these concepts I think we do need some plan. We need some pictures which, as yet, we have not got. My department is producing a sustainable transport policy which is being discussed with scrutiny at the moment and I would expect it to be presented to the States for debate in September. I am worried about the traffic implications of taking this in isolation. The potential serious effect on the lack of replacement parking for residents and market users and the resulting parking chaos which could ensue. This basic loss of 389 public parking spaces is a big issue. The Gas Place car park is the only car park in St. Helier which allows

parking for commercial vehicles of over 15 feet and replacement parking for this will be required. The Gas Place car park tends to be approximately half full overnight. This is residents. There is no tangible replacement parking for them at this moment. While Green Street and Pier Road and Patriotic Street have space at present, there is no doubt that it is a fair walk and I just cannot imagine, in all practicality, residents being prepared to walk that sort of distance to park their cars. Our policy focuses on getting traffic out of the middle of town in an attempt to remove the congestion which is now prevalent. In parallel, we have an obligation to consider the needs of residents, commuters, market and commercial needs and visitors to the area. Commerce is the life blood of a vibrant town and I am very concerned about prejudicing that situation. The balance is always delicate and sweeping away the residential and shopper parking at Gas Place, without providing any significant replacement, is to my mind fraught with danger. My view is that it is essential that some form of parking is provided at Gas Place underground and that this has to be funded. I contend that the proposal suggested in the North of Town Masterplan achieve this and suggest that this comprised situation - and it is a compromise - should be accepted so that we can proceed without any further delay. The risk of not adopting this approach is that those who are resident in the area, who live in the area, will be obliged to park in the outlying car parks, as I

suggest. I would suggest that it is relatively .. this is just so impractical and we must be surely practical in our approach. This is the concern that I hear on the street and I feel that the Connétable and the supporters are choosing to ignore these real needs of residents. It is my department's intention to proceed with the planning application for remediation work as it needs to be done, come what may. This will be submitted, I am assured, by officers during the coming week. I want to demonstrate that we want to move ahead with this without undue delay. We are conscious of the risks of all altering major car parking areas and warn that the use of selective figures proposing alternative parking as suggested have yet to receive planning approval, do not have any I.A.s (Impact Assessments), have not been passed by local residents and are extremely high risk. I would also suggest that consideration must be given to all users of the area, as well as the Island in general, and urge Members to respect the recommendations of the masterplan so that any grave errors which could be created by the adoption of this proposition in isolation, can be avoided. I conclude by reminding Members that the park is not purely a St. Helier park, it was destined to be a park - a millennium park - for the people of Jersey.

Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier :

Can I just for a point of clarification from the Constable? He made a big play on the car parking. Where do you intend to put all the cars that you are so worried about while the park is being developed?

The Connétable of St. Brelade :

The intention is the present cars be moved to the temporary car park at Ann Court which is under development.

9. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade :

I really wonder what it is the Connétable wants. He tells us he wants a town park. Well the Minster for Planning and Environment's design gives him that and also gives the people of St. Helier, and all other Islanders who come to St. Helier, several open spaces. He tells us this is what we voted for. No, it is not. Because what has happened to the parking? The original proposition which went back to the petition has been clarified this morning for us by the Solicitor General. But last year when the issue of the park was bought to the States as an amendment to the budget, I voted against it. I recall the reasons for that was because I did not believe it was deliverable for £10 million. The deliverable having been put to us in the opening speech of the amendment by Deputy Southern , which I will quote from Hansard ..

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

I wonder if I could just ask you to pause for a moment the house is inquorate. I call Members from the adjoining rooms to return to the Chamber please.

The Connétable of St. Helier :

While we have stopped, could I just ask that the current speaker addresses her comments to the amendment because clearly I am not able to reply to the comments she is making about my propositions.

The Deputy Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

We still need another Member, we have only 26 Members.

Deputy A.E. Jeune :

As I said, I would quote from Hansard of 24th September 2009: "By December 1997 we went ahead and purchased the Talman site which we did not previously own. So we have got the land, we were making progress. Sadly, there the whole thing went wrong. July 1998 a full consultation exercise was done with various options of the way forward and it was noted that the preferred option was for a full town park covering the full site with some underground parking. At the time

the suggestion was that there would be 3 floors of underground parking and that zoomed the price right up and that became a problem. In June 1999 independent evaluation of the financial aspects had been conducted and initial plans had been drawn up to meet the need for (a) the park, which is absolutely vital in the area and (b) the parking requirements." The North of Town Masterplan appears to me, as it stands, to give several areas of open spaces which can be enjoyed by all. That, I believe, considers the elderly and disabled giving the various options of where they can go for outside enjoyment. It is not only about children, and Springfield is close by. Much has been made in this debate of the country fields. Well, these are privately owned spaces. They are not public areas or parks. The proposition appears to me to do one thing which is scupper the North of Town Masterplan.

10. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence :

There was no doubt that emotions would run high during this debate and we have of course seen that. However, I should like to bring it back to what I believe is the crux of the matter and that is planning.

[11:00]

Not long ago this House approved the rezoning of 48 vergées of land, including a number of green fields within 8 Parishes. Critics said during the debate that the proposals were ill advised, ad hoc, and should have been part of an Island wide development plan. They should, in fact, have been brought forward to the House as part of the next Island Plan. That would have allowed us to be better informed to make the decision whether or not to pour concrete and lose for ever those green fields. I could not and did not support that concrete pouring in such an ad hoc, ill considered and, to me, unplanned manner. We have appointed a Minister for Planning and Environment. The title, I believe, explains a lot. We approved that Minister of Planning and Environment's proposal to deliver a North of Town Masterplan and he has done just that. What folly would it be to charge the Minister to deliver that masterplan and for us today to disregard the work, the time spent on it, and the money spent on it, when in 6 weeks' time we can all have our say on those proposals. [Approbation] There is no doubt in my mind that the correct way of dealing with this issue is to debate the North of Town Masterplan and for us all to make an informed decision. An informed decision on it, in its entirety. To do otherwise, I believe, would be for us to negate our responsibility as Members.

11. Senator F.E. Cohen:

I am fully committed to the delivery of the town park and I will not propose anything that delays the commencement of works. I am very well aware that many Members are deeply passionate about this issue and I understand entirely, their concerns. If I could have produced a masterplan that delivered everyone's aspirations, I assure Members that I would have done so. We have done our very best to deliver a masterplan but I do accept that it creates balances and some may not like the balances that are contained therein. T.T.S. are about to submit a planning application and when they do I assure Members it will be fast tracked. The Council of Ministers' amendment seeks to do one thing and seeks to do one thing only, that is to give this Assembly the opportunity to debate the North of Town Masterplan. It does not seek to delay the start of the remediation works to the town park by even one day. Well over £100,000 has been spent on the masterplan. The public have spent time and energy in responding to the consultation process. Surely all this effort deserves a democratic debate by this Assembly, whatever its outcome.  [Approbation] Voting for this amendment does not in any way signify that any Member will support the masterplan. It merely ensures that this Assembly has the opportunity to debate the masterplan in an orderly fashion. The masterplan has only just been lodged and Members need time to consider its content. Indeed, I also propose to make Members aware of possible modifications to the plan, to provide a number of options, including reducing the suggested apartments on the Gas Place site. Albeit, Members must understand that all amendments will be, and bear, additional cost, some very substantial additional costs. The masterplan is an holistic attempt to improve the north of the town using the budget presently allocated and that is the £10 million that this House decided to allocate, and the use of £12 million from the car park trading fund. Changes may require additional funding if the masterplan is all to be delivered but that is a decision for this House. We have all walked or driven in the north of the town area and wondered at the beautiful villas lining the roads. The wonderful industrial buildings, such as the Le Seeleur building, and imagined just how it could all be improved and made into a premier area of the town. If you close your eyes you can see the completed north of the town. A premier area of our town, a place for us all to enjoy and a place for the residents to be proud of. The masterplan seeks specifically to piece back together the missing parts of the north of the town and will put in place the key public pieces of the jigsaw ready for the private sector to do the rest. If Members need to understand why the north of town is as it is, one only has to consult the maps of the town dating back particularly to the Richmond map, where we can see the line of where the town finished, and why the north of the town is as it is now. I do not believe that considering the town park alone today will do the best for the north of the town and it certainly will not deliver a realistic parking solution. I respect the comments made by the Constable of St. Helier and I understand that he has done his best to identify alternative car parking solutions. However, there is not another holistic car parking solution that has any chance whatsoever of working. The masterplan provides a number of key pieces of the jigsaw to regenerate the area. The specific key pieces are the town park, as an open area rather than a formal garden. It is not a London gated park. It is a Jersey park designed for Jersey. Albeit, I accept, that the present proposals are for some development to provide framing, to provide social housing and to make the holistic mathematics of the financials work. Of course, we are incorporating essential underground car parking. Secondly, the redevelopment of the Ann Court site and a creation of a second park in the area with further underground car parking. I accept fully the comments made by Deputy Martin that there is a danger that if this is to be a private development in that the units are not social housing, that some may try and claim that park for themselves. However, it is up to the Planning Department and this House to direct the use of that park and we have the planning