States Meeting Transcript - 20/01/2010

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT WEDNESDAY, 20th JANUARY 2010

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................5

1. Plémont Holiday Village: Acquisition by the Public (P.144/2009) – resumption........5

1.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:........................................................5

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier:.......................................................6
2. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:.........................................................7
3. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:......................................................8
4. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence:..........................................9
5. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................10
6. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : .............................................14
7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:..................................................15
8. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................18
9. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................19
10. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................20
11. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:............................................21 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................24 The Deputy of Grouville :.....................................................................24 Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.......................................................................24 Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier:..........................................................24 Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier:...........................................................25

[Debate proceeded in camera] ................................................................25

12. The Deputy of Grouville : ............................................................26
13. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : ............................................26 Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................27
14. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................27
15. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................28

2. BlackBerries: costs for Ministers and Assistant Ministers and use in the Assembly (P.186/2009)..............................................................................31

2.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................31 The Attorney General:........................................................................33

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................36

1. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................36
2. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................38
3. Deputy J.A. Martin of St. Helier:.......................................................38
4. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................40
5. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier: ..............................................................40
6. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................41
7. Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................41

8. Senator T.A. Le Sueur:.................................................................41
9. Deputy S.Pitman:......................................................................41
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................42 The Bailiff :...................................................................................43
11. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................44
12. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................45
13. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade:.....................................................46 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................46
14. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................48
15. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................48
16. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................48
17. Deputy J.A. Hilton:..................................................................48
18. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................49
19. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................49

3. Fort Regent: establishment of a working group (P.188/2009)..........................53

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier (Chairman, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel):...54

2. Fort Regent: establishment of a working group (P.188/2009) – second amendment (P.188/2009 Amd.(2))....................................................................54

1. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen (The Minister for Education, Sport and Culture):........54
2. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................55
3. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................55
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................55
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................56
6. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................56

3. Fort Regent: establishment of a working group (P.188/2009) – amendment (P.188/2009 Amd.).......................................................................58

1. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................58
2. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................58
3. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:....................................................59
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................59
5. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................59
6. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................59
7. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................59

8. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................59

4. Fort Regent: establishment of a working group (P.188/2009) - resumption...........61

1. Senator P.F. Routier: ...................................................................61
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................61
3. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................61
4. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................61
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois: ...................................................................62
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................62
7. The Deputy of St. Ouen:................................................................62
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................63
9. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................64
10. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................64
11. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................64
12. The Connétable of St. Ouen : ........................................................64
13. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................65

14. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................66
15. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................66

4. Draft Supply of Goods and Services (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.190/2009)..........68

4.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................68

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................68
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................69
3. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................69 Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................70

5. User Pays' Charges: Immigration fees (P.193/2009)..................................70

5.1 Senator B.I. Le Marquand (The Minister for Home Affairs): ...........................70

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................71
2. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................71
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..............................................................72

6. States of Jersey Law: Quorum in the States (P.194/2009)..............................72

6.1 Deputy T.M. Pitman:...................................................................72

1. The Deputy of St. John:................................................................73
2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................74
3. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................74

4. Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement:.................................................75
5. The Deputy of St. Peter : ................................................................75
6. The Connétable of St. Lawrence:.......................................................75
7. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................76
8. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.........................................................77
9. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................77
10. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................78
11. Deputy S.Pitman:...................................................................79
12. Deputy M.R.Higgins:...............................................................80
13. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................80
14. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................81
15. Deputy J.A. Martin: .................................................................81
16. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................82
17. Senator J.L. Perchard: ...............................................................82
18. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................83
19. Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................83
20. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................83

7. Draft Foundations (Additional Annual Charge) (Jersey) Regulations 200- (P.210/2009)..............................................................................85

7.1 Senator A.J.H. Maclean (The Minister for Economic Development):...................86

1. The Deputy of Grouville :...............................................................86
2. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................86
3. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................87
4. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................87
5. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................87 Deputy M.R. Higgins (Chairman, Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel):........................88

ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS ....................89

8. The Connétable of St. Mary:............................................................90

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................90

[9:30]

The Roll was called and the Assistant Greffier of the States led the Assembly in Prayer.

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Plémont Holiday Village: Acquisition by the Public (P.144/2009) – resumption Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John :

For the same reasons given yesterday, the Planning Applications Panel are going to remove themselves from the debate.

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair):

Very well, members of the Planning Applications Panel will be withdrawing from the debate. The debate resumes on the proposition of the Connétable of St. Ouen relating to Plémont. Deputy Tadier , you were on the Bailiff 's list from yesterday.

1.1 Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I think I drew the short straw. Nonetheless I will try and make some sense of this. This is a fairly difficult debate, I think, in particular for newer Members perhaps. Something that we knew was coming because during the hustings it was a very hot topic as we toured through the Parishes. It is not an easy decision, I think, to make either way. We have heard some very compelling speeches on both sides yesterday; first of all from the Constable of St. Ouen, latterly from the Deputy of St. Ouen, and it is good to see a bit of loyalty there; it is nice to see that the Deputy is fighting for his Parish. I wish often when I have brought propositions in the past to protect lands in St. Brelade I could also have the same support from my Constable and my Deputy . Alas, that was not the case. Congratulations to St. Ouen . But we are talking about vastly different sizes of land here. Indeed, the Chief Minister has given me food for thought, because I think he came out with some very compelling reasons as to why maybe we ought to avoid compulsory purchase. We know that on the one side we do have financial constraints at the moment. We also know that there is a level of uncertainty about the price of the land. There is a level of uncertainty about whether the land will gain planning permission or not. These 2 things going on simultaneously, I must admit, do make me rather uneasy, which I am sure is the case for other Members. But on the other side of the coin, we do know that there is great public feeling about the land at Plémont. We also know, I am quite sure, that if the land was completely blank today, the Minister for Planning and Environment certainly would not give permission for any kind of development on that land, and I think that is also a consideration to be made. What makes me even more uneasy is that it seems to be that we are presented with 2 options here, neither of which sit very easily with me, and with other Members, and with some members the public, I believe. I will explain what I mean. It is that on the one hand we are being told that we can go down the compulsory purchase route with all the possible litigation perhaps, depending on planning issues, with the unknown expense; but on the other hand if we do not accept this proposition today - if we reject it - it seems to me that what we will inevitably have is buildings on that land, and that is not something that I am happy with either. So, I think Members really should ask themselves the very basic question: what is it that we as individuals in the States, but also as a collective, want for that land. It is very clear to me: I would like to see Plémont restored to nature. Some Members will agree with that; other Members will not. I would say that we need to vote accordingly; and that is really the rub, because from what I have heard today if we reject this proposition then there will be buildings on Plémont. The only way I can see of ensuring that it is returned to nature is to support this proposition with all the uncertainty and perhaps with all the flaws that people have mentioned. I would like at this point maybe to ask the proposer, as was mentioned yesterday, whether he would be willing to take the parts separately, and he has nodded, so that is reassuring, because I think one way forward that I would like to see, as I have said, is to keep Plémont, return it to nature, without going down the route of compulsory purchase. The ideal situation would be for the States to negotiate in the

meantime for the purchase of that land and then, subject to a good price, an approved price, we could purchase the land and do that. I think I am going to keep this speech short, because that is really the rub of it for me. We are faced with a simple, in one sense .. do we want the land to be used for developers? It is very curious. I found it very strange to come into what used to be the lunchroom and immediately it is being put to very good use with a model of what the houses would look like at Plémont. We are being lobbied the very first day back by developers who want to show us their great plans for the land, and they do look pretty impressive. But there is no counter plan; there is no model there to show us what the headland would look like if it were returned to nature, with models of people walking their dogs with people riding horses around there, because simply obviously there is no money to be made in that. That is what it boils down to, does it not? This piece of land, the figure of £14 million has been bandied around. Of course we know that is a completely misleading figure and obviously any price paid would be significantly less than that. We can, on the one hand, agree to bring in a £100 million plus incinerator which we know will be defunct. It is not even a short-term investment because it will harm the health of our children. We know it is old technology. So, we are quite happy to spend perhaps 10 or 15 times more than that amount on Jersey's biggest ever capital spending to harm the health of our children, but we are not willing to spend perhaps £5 million to secure a piece of land in St. Ouen which can be enjoyed by the whole Island. This is really what we have to ask ourselves. So, really, I would ask Members who do want to see Plémont restored to nature, can we afford to spend a few million pounds to return it to nature and to the public in perpetuity? I think the answer must be yes.

1. Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier :

Coming into the States I always hoped that my principles would see me endeavouring to support propositions such as this for, while I know some suspect that I wear a Che Guevara t-shirt under my suit - and I confess that I often do - it is nevertheless at least a green t-shirt, because I believe it is impossible for any politician seriously committed to ensuring our long-term future not to be supportive of environmental issues in developing policy; and this certainly is an environmental issue. I have to say that reading the proposition and the various comments, and listening to speeches so far, I find myself, like my colleague Deputy De Sousa, full of worries and as yet unanswered questions, questions which I hope the proposer or someone will answer. My one overpowering impression, however, on what I have heard so far is to be appalled at the realisation as to what total thrall this Government is in to the wiles and machinations of property developers. It truly is not good enough that we seem to go weak at the knees at the thought that these people might challenge any decision that we make. Where, I ask, is our backbone as Government? The issue of property developers brings me to the speech of the Deputy of St. Martin, and what a firebrand, I have to say. Indeed, listening to the Deputy 's speech railing against those in government who think everything should be totally driven by money, wow, a case of the Deputy arriving at Glenaa by way of Damascus I thought when I listened to him. I agreed with every word, and I was even going to put it down as his best ever speech in the Chamber; certainly since I have been here. Unfortunately my impression was somewhat spoiled slightly when I took the trouble last night to check the town park debate on Deputy Southern 's amendment to secure funding and found that the Deputy of St. Martin voted against it. So a road to Damascus conversion or a case of N.I.M.B.Y.ism (not in my back yard) as another Member stated? Well, I am willing to give the Deputy the benefit of the doubt, and I hope that is the case. I look forward to seeing the victor from the Council of Ministers very shortly. What about the proposer, the Constable of St. Ouen? Unfortunately I checked the order; he did not vote in that debate on the town park, so we will have to give his new found support to the people of St. Helier the benefit of the doubt as well; and I am pleased to hear it. Now, I have to say that a part of me also leans towards rejecting this, for in

another excellent speech, Deputy Martin really made some very good commonsense points. [9:45]

Who could argue with the fact that many residents of St. Helier who have waited so long for this succession of governments now to make a town park a reality, would be absolutely overjoyed to wake up to housing with a green aspect included in the latest designs put forward by the developers' architect. They are really quite impressive, you have to concede. Yet, what I really need to know, and hopefully the proposer or the Minister for Treasury and Resources - I do not know if he is allowed to speak again - can give me the answer. What assurances could be given if the application to develop was accepted, that this 70 per cent of land to be returned to the public really would guarantee that the likes of ordinary Joe Public really could just roam at will, take the

kids, the dog, the picnic, et cetera? Because that is a concern, I think. It certainly all sounds very good. From the other side of the coin I would also like to know, because I am not yet clear on this, if we do support the proposition, what is the probable knock-on effect of what might, as a result, be sacrificed? As I say, I have heard the proposer talk about the town park, and as a representative of St. Helier I would hate to see - and I would not accept seeing - one cast aside to provide the other. Finally, and Deputy Tadier has beaten me to the punch a little, let us just remember that without the incinerator contract fiasco, and even more so the massively overpriced incinerator itself, this proposition really would not present us with such a dilemma. As I think of it, I too would like it noted that I would like the proposer to consider taking those votes separately, because I think it might be the difference between getting what he really wants eventually and not, although I understand his frustration - he probably wants to get this done and dusted, and I think that is quite understandable. So, those are my concerns. They may change the way that I vote, dependent on the answers given. Yet, full of this, I am still minded deep down to support the proposition, if for no other reason than to send a warning shot to developers and speculators that we are the ones to decide on the way this Island is developed in the future on behalf of the best interest of the Island's people, both this generation and those to come in the future.

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

Like previous speakers, I too supported propositions to investigate the possibility of the States acquiring the land at Plémont for the benefit of the public. I supported them because I believed the States had a duty to do so. We will only have one opportunity to influence the eventual outcome of this site. Not to at least try and find a solution would have been wrong in my opinion. I understand entirely why some Islanders think we should go ahead regardless of the cost to the public, but I cannot support that view. Even though my heart is saying yes, my head is saying no. It seems to me the process the Constable of St. Ouen has adopted is fundamentally wrong for all the reasons the Chief Minister set out very clearly in his speech yesterday. My instinct about compulsory purchase is that it is not the best way to proceed, not least because once it is started there will be no turning back. I am a great believer in process and feel, if you get it right at the outset, everything else will fall into place, without the States getting hopelessly bogged down in the mire and expense of litigation. It may be, when the planning process is complete, the States can once again resume negotiations with the owner in an attempt to come to an agreeable solution. In an ideal world I would support the purchase of Plémont for the public, but before we can get to that point of knowing whether it is possible or not, the owner has an absolute right to have his application considered by the Planning Panel. It is with great interest I read the comments contained within the document that was distributed to States Members yesterday. Not surprisingly, a large majority of the comments left in the document were written by parishioners of St. Ouen which, considering the exhibition was held in St. Ouen, was to be expected. But what rather surprised me, according to my calculations, was that 28 parishioners supported the plan for development proposed by the owner and 9 objected, all of whom were recorded as being parishioners of St. Ouen. So, contrary to what has been reported in the media, it would seem at least as far as those St. Ouen residents were concerned who visited the exhibition, the majority do support the proposal. In summary, I cannot support this proposition, but hope if this proposition does not have the support of States Members today, the Council of Ministers will still try to broker a deal when the planning process is

finalised, which they can bring back to the House for further consideration by the States Assembly.

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

Members will be pleased to hear, or at least I hope some will be, that I have fully recovered from choking on my cornflakes. When I first heard of this proposition, I was torn, I think like many Members; torn between the wish to put right a wrong and torn between the cost of doing so. Until yesterday, I sat well and truly on the fence; but people will be pleased to know overnight I have jumped off that fence. We have a unique opportunity in front of us to put right a wrong; a wrong of previous administrations - a previous administration that allowed the development on the Plémont site. The question I ask is: "Have we the courage? Have we the courage to do it?" This is not about N.I.M.B.Y.ism. This is about righting a terrible mistake of the past. This is not a once in a lifetime opportunity; this is the opportunity, I would suggest, for the rest of time. Everyone, and I think everyone, will agree that the development that is proposed is a great improvement; and so if you ask people what they think of the proposed development, they are going to say it is an improvement: "It is a great improvement." But is it good enough? I would suggest it is not. If we agree with this development, we are just compounding a previous error of judgment, not righting a wrong. One of the things I learnt in my years of management is that when you make a mistake, you do not continue to compound that mistake. When you get an opportunity, you learn from your mistakes and you put them right. We have an opportunity - an opportunity to remove this carbuncle and protect a special site, not for the Parish of St. Ouen, but for the Islanders and for all the generations to come. Let us take a quick look at our environmental record so far. We do not

need to go too far. We just need to drive east along Victoria Avenue and have a look at what we see on the Waterfront. We see a very large power station. Oh, sorry; that is the Radisson Hotel. We see a Chernobyl-type structure being developed. Yes, that is a new energy for waste plant; a carbuncle of enormous proportions, on the edge of our Ramsar site, devastating our beautiful coastline. What a welcome for visitors; what a legacy for our children. We should hang our heads in shame. The Deputy of St. John asked yesterday: "Where are the people supporting this?" implying that we should only support things that are popular. Well, I will tell him where they are. They are sick and tired of our inaction. Regardless of whether it is popular or not, we should do what is right. Income tax is not popular, but we have it. I believe that many Members, those that have spoken and those have not or are yet to speak, have concerns regarding compulsory purchase and all that this will commit us to: the unknown cost and the years of legal wrangling. I have concerns that the Constable has had to bring yet a third proposition on this matter, despite the fact that 2 previous Assemblies have agreed on 2 separate occasions, and indeed instructed - as I understand it - those in office to negotiate a purchase. But nothing has happened. It seems to me that some Ministers and some civil servants hold this House in contempt, and no matter what course of action is agreed, they continue to do what they want to do, regardless. That is why we find ourselves here today. Of course many Members will be concerned about the cost. I am. The developer will be looking for a return on his investment, and there is nothing wrong with that. This Island needs people that create wealth, that create jobs, that pay tax; and the developer, I would suggest, is in this deal to make a profit, not for any idealistic or altruistic reasons, and as long as we understand that, we have got room for movement; we have got room for negotiation. We have land that is waiting to be developed. The States have land which is waiting to be developed, all over the Island, and in particular at the Waterfront. Surely we can agree a land swap. But, of course, to do so, we have to be proactive, we have to be creative, and we have to - dread on dread - talk to the developer. It is something that we appear not to be able to do. Some people might say we are selling the family silver. No, we are not. We would be swapping a valuable piece of land for an invaluable priceless piece of land for the Islanders of the future, for our children, for our grandchildren. As it stands, many Members have concerns over this proposition; as I said particularly the compulsory purchase element. Given that this Assembly, or previous Assemblies, have agreed to obtain the site twice before, one way forward, I might suggest, is for the Constable to withdraw this proposition at this stage, regard this debate as a slap on the wrist for those who should have carried out this work before, and an instruction to get on with it, allowing him of course to come back with a proposition if they fail to do so. We need to have time for meaningful negotiations to take place, reserving the Constable's right to come back. But this is a once .. once we vote on this, if we vote no, then Plémont will be developed and we will have lost it for ever.

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

I rise to speak really without trying to repeat what other people have said, but I feel that I want my voice to be heard on this proposition. Firstly, I need to support the Connétable for having brought not only this proposition but the earlier 2 that he has done, because it is his duty, I believe, as Connétable to be acting in this manner and doing his utmost to protect the headland at Plémont. I was elected on a mandate to preserve our countryside. I do not support rezoning of green fields. I voted against all the rezoning propositions a couple of years ago, and I also do not support the proposal within the Island Plan to develop the glasshouse site within St. Lawrence. I take this opportunity to remind the Minister for Planning and Environment - although he has withdrawn from the Chamber - that my opinion on that remains the same. I have already told him I am against the proposed development, and I repeat it again in public. He has given a commitment to the Constables that ..

The Greffier of the States (in the Chair): Let us get back to the general business.

The Connétable of St. Lawrence :

Yes; I will do. Nevertheless, what I am doing is showing my green credentials. However, the timeline to bring us where we are today, as we know, started in 2006 when the States agreed that it would be in the public interest for the headland at Plémont and the surrounding associated land to be preserved as open space for the enjoyment of the public of the Island; and that is irrefutable. We have already agreed to that, and as has been said, the issue is the timing, as Senator Le Sueur said yesterday: "The timing of the proposition is not helpful." What we must remember is that following our decision that we should acquire the land, a planning application was put forward and subsequently refused by the Minister for Planning and Environment. They have now come forward with another application which is due to be considered, I understand, in the very near future. So, the timing of this is not helpful. Certainly, as the Chief Minister said yesterday, there must be something wrong with our system if it falls to the Minister for Planning and Environment to proceed with a compulsory purchase application and yet also be in the unenviable position of

needing to make a determination on the application. It has been said earlier that if the compulsory purchase route is taken there is no going back, and we know that for certain.

[10:00]

However, I would submit that as soon as the concrete has been poured on Plémont there is no going back. So, what we want to do is reach middle ground between compulsory purchase and acquiring the land as has already been agreed by the States. So, that brings me to the proposition itself, whereby the Connétable has already been requested to take the vote separately so that we may have the option of voting in favour of section (a) which is to approve, subject to the availability of the necessary funds, voted by the Assembly, the acquisition by the public of the site known as the Plémont Holiday Village. We have heard that the valuation of the land cannot be determined before the planning application has been decided upon, so it seems to me quite clear that what we must do is support the Connétable by voting in favour of (a) of his proposition to approve, subject to the availability of the necessary funds. That is the first step. After that the planning application will be decided and we will be in a position to go forward and negotiate to acquire the land. To sum up, I was at the public meeting on Friday at St. Ouen 's Parish Hall and the overwhelming impression was that those present want the land to be acquired for the public, and of course we have seen the comments in writing from others who viewed the exhibition, and quite rightly so. They should be allowed to give their thoughts on the proposals. However, one thing I do recall at the meeting was that the architect said that, I believe, there had been no discussion by the States with them to propose a valuation. My understanding, from what he said, was that the architects themselves had come up with a valuation based, as we know, on the Bal Tabarin compulsory purchase, and they had then approached Property Holdings to find out whether that valuation would be realistic, so I am still of the opinion that no one has actually sat down with the architect acting on behalf of the owner. So, just to summarise, I am totally in support of the Connétable 's attempts to acquire the land for the public. I ask that he take the propositions separately so that we can vote on item (a) and I do urge the House to go with him and to finally give the approval to acquire the land, subject to the availability of the necessary funds, and that, I believe, is a debate for another day. Thank you.

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

It is an important debate because it raises fundamental issues as one or 2 have pointed out already, and I am going to focus on 3 things, really. The first is the attitude of the States - which I think is in question here - about everything really. What is our overall stance? Also on the price, which is clearly a key element in this whole debate. People have expressed worries about other priorities and obviously this is right, and they are legitimate worries but of course the degree of the worry - the extent of that worry - depends on the price that we end up paying. The third factor is the moral issues surrounding the determination of the price because it is not in a vacuum that you determine the price of a piece of land. By the way, please let us drop the sectarian walls that I sense under the surface between town and country, and even between Parish and Parish. This is not a Parish issue. I note that the 3 representatives, well 2 representatives from St. Ouen and a Deputy who lives in St. Ouen have all spoken in favour, but that it not the point. Nor is it the point that 140 people went to the Parish Hall in St. Ouen and expressed, very largely, a view that we should take steps to acquire this land. That is not really the issue either and I would refer Members to the Line in the Sand as a more representative, as a wider version of what the public are saying to us. Just a few words about the price to get Members in the right frame of mind, although I will return to the price. We have been given this figure of £14.7 million, or over £14 million in media terms and that is a scare figure. That is designed to stop debate and when Deputy Hilton expresses her worries that in the consultation document that BDK have given us, that the majority of people who went to their exhibition in St. Ouen, which was around 70 people I think, that the majority of them said they would rather see it developed than acquired. In the back of those people's minds was an enormous price tag that had been put into the public domain by the people who do not want to do it. I really do have concerns about this management of public opinion. We read in the Chief Minister's comments on page 3 that Jersey Property Holdings have put a value on the land at current use, of less than £3 million. I have never seen that figure of less than £3 million in the paper or heard it on the radio, and of course that raises questions about the nature of the way we engage with the public. We tell them £14 million, sorry, we do not tell them, I beg your pardon. It gets around that it is £14 million. It is put out there by the developer and it is not challenged, and that £3 million figure I assume has been around for some time. I asked the question, as I was asked to do in writing last night, and I have not had the reply so I do not know what date that was found, but there you go, £3 million. I think we should bear that in mind as we go forward in this debate. So, I will turn to the attitude of the States in general. I believe that we should, as an Assembly and as a society, raise our horizons and some others have referred to this sort of area. Jersey is a good place to live by and large. There are qualifications to that, of course. There is some way to go on issues of equality for example, but by and large it is a good place to live and we should be striving to make it better. Yes, we do look after the roads, we do run a school system, we do have a fire service and so on. We run

the ordinary facilities of civilised life, but when it comes to our heritage we quibble and wobble. When it comes to the town park it takes 12 years to get anywhere because fundamentally it is seen as an option. It is seen as something that exactly would make life better but it is not essential, and when it comes to our landscape, as in this case, we talk about compromise. We talk about, well, pity but where do we have to go? When it comes to Fort Regent, which will be coming up later, we could focus on the potential. We could focus on the fantastic provision of sporting facilities up there, about the ramparts and the potential of the ramparts, and the views and the gardens, the historical interest. We could talk about gathering all the stakeholders together, the States leading, putting in plans to shape the place and involving everyone, but what do we hear from the Ministers? "We have not got the money." Cautionary note on this proposition, we probably cannot do anything. How depressing and what a lack of ambition that displays to the public. Jersey, one of the wealthiest places on the planet. Jersey, one of the wealthiest places not only in financial terms but also in the assets and talents of its people. We have an amazing range of voluntary activity and sporting and cultural life. From a community of 90,000 it beggars belief. I have had visitors staying at our house and they say they just cannot believe it, there is just something on every night. There is indeed, and that is in a small community. Yet we have this mantra filtering through into the back of our minds: "We cannot do it. We must be cautious, we have not got any money." For the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating profligacy and other Members have spoken about the incinerator, but of course there are other aspects. We should not be indulging in subsidising things if that is avoidable. There should be prudence in the public finances, we have to have a war on waste. We should take intelligent decisions to save money. Prevention in the field of crime or in the field of ill-health is cheaper and better than cure, but I am deploring the lack of ambition. I would say to Members that the problem does not lie with the States Members. They voted twice to do this, as the previous speaker the Constable of St. Lawrence has pointed out and others have too. We voted for this to happen but it does not happen. The Council of Ministers has been instructed by previous propositions to explore all options and nothing has happened. It is pitiful and there is a paralysis here which we have to explode. We have to go past this to a better way of doing things. Before moving on to the question of cost, I just want to say a few words about the proposed development and I must say that when I went to the offices of BDK - or it might have been Image PR, wherever it was - the tea was the best tea I have every drunk, so congratulations. It was very good. I am a bit of a fusser about the quality of the water and the quality of the tea, but it was good. However, to get back to the issue at hand, the exposition of the plans by the architect was very persuasive. The 30 houses all in granite, in their little clusters - it was persuasive and I came away having some doubts, I must confess, particularly when he was talking about the amount of land that would be going to the public because the whole development had been shifted to the south. But I have had another sort of take on this because, in fact, of the model downstairs which has taken over what used to be our lunch room. There is this vast model of the proposal and I must say, if you look at that model and you think about this little cluster of what are not Jersey farmhouses, they are Jersey suburban pastiche farmhouses stuck in the middle of nowhere on a cliff, it does not make any sense at all. It is completely out of place and if I imagine riding up there with my group of cyclists, although I do not do that anymore, but I used to, and there is this weird piece of suburban pastiche Jersey in totally the wrong place. It does not stack up even in aesthetic or planning terms, but you may say that is a personal opinion. So, is the proposed development appropriate and what would be appropriate? The first point of course is Plémont itself. Plémont, one of Jersey's greatest treasures and to suggest, as some have done, that this is a sort of private park for the St. Ouennais is ludicrous. I have been to Plémont beach on a Sunday afternoon and it is packed with Islanders from everywhere, and visitors too. It is a wonderful place. I would just add to this matter of the importance of landscape, that at the Culture Conference, which I think the Minister attended, the representative from the Isle of Man spoke about a survey which was done among Manx people, and what came out of this survey about their heritage was that the most important aspect of their culture, to the Manx people, was their landscape. That was the thing that came top of the poll. We should not underestimate the

importance of the landscape to the people of this Island, and you only have to remember the images of the Line in the Sand.

[10:15]

In planning terms, outstanding beauty goes without saying, and that would be violated by the proposals but the other aspect is, and people have not mentioned this, is that there is a presumption against development if it is isolated and if people would then have to use their cars to get anywhere, and basically that is what they would, in practice, do. It is pretty well as far away as you can get from anywhere and in 1998/1999, I think, a proposal was rejected for precisely this reason - that it was contrary to sustainability. The real reason that this development might be considered to be appropriate, is our population policy, one of the little elephants in the room. The corollary of this endless bringing more people into the Island is that it is, in fact, appropriate to build anywhere and if it is Plémont, it might as well be somebody else's field, as the Constable of St. Lawrence pointed out. It is sad that this is where the policy leads us, but that is where we are. But the question remains, of course, whether Plémont is an appropriate or right place to put a development. I sum up this whole section about the appropriateness of putting this development, or something similar - but we will talk about this proposal on Plémont - is to imagine your reaction to the statement: "Let us build on Grosnez." Why not, it is just a piece of gorse with a very nice view of other islands and the Paternosters are beautiful. "Oh no, you cannot", is my instant reaction and, I suspect, that of everyone here and everyone listening. You could not build on Grosnez, so the issue is why not? What is the difference between Grosnez and Plémont? The difference is, of course, one thing. Plémont is owned by Mr. Speculator, in the form of Mr. Hemmings and I will come on to that now. In the context of the issue of price we are talking about how much should we be thinking in terms of, and this is vital to the whole proposition and to its success, is how much are we talking about? All our ideas have a price, most of them do, but what is the appropriate price? Now, if we look at Mr. Hemming's credentials ..

The Bailiff :

Please do not refer to him, Deputy ..

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I beg your pardon, the developer, okay, the owner of the land, the landowner, I beg your pardon. But I think it is important to put this in context, because later on the moral decision is, are we acting in the interests of the public or in the interests of the landowner? Of course it is an old chestnut, but we do have to face it in this case. I will quote the Sunday Times. Now, normally if you go Googling and you find something written in the Sunday Times you might take it, not necessarily as gospel, but on this occasion it is the results for the rich list and if you listen to the level of detail, I think these guys writing this have actually been writing the rich list for quite a while. They have a bank of information which they update and it is pretty solid, so the unnamed landowner who has a 28 per cent stake in Preston North End, has seen his fortune fall 71 per cent in the last year. This is dated April 2009. He was a right-hand man to Sir Fred Pontin at his holiday camp business and helped to assemble a management buyout ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am not sure how relevant this is. This is an individual who you certainly are entitled to make the point about whether the landowner could or could not sell more cheaply, but ..

The Deputy of St. Mary : Yes, that is ..

The Bailiff :

That is right, but I do not think going into personal information about his business.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Fair enough, I will just take the one sentence which is completely relevant, which is - 2 sentences: "He sold Pontins to Scott ish and Newcastle for a large share stake. He must love Pontins as he quietly bought it back again for less than £30 million in 2000." For less than £30 million in 2000, that is the whole of Pontins. Right? Not Plémont, but the one in Blackpool and the one in .. all over Britain for £30 million. A nice little number and he did not buy them as going concerns. He bought them as a property investment and that is the point, is it not? When you connect up and relate the issue of the public interest with the issue of the landowner's interest in this case. It is not, as somebody said, somebody who wants to contribute to the economy of the Island. He is worth a quarter of a billion and we are matching his interests ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I am sorry. I must insist. You cannot go into personal information about a person who is not a Member of these States. You are entitled to make the point that, simply in broad terms, he is reasonably wealthy and there we are, but it is not strictly relevant to the issue here. What is being proposed is that this be purchased at whatever market value the property has and it is the same market value whether it is owned by a wealthy man or a not wealthy man.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

Yes, Sir. I will come to the issue of what the value is and I am sketching in the background, and it is relevant to the moral issue which faces the Assembly about the public interest versus the private interest. It would make a difference if he was worth a few million. It does make a difference that he was a billionaire and is now a quarter of a billionaire. I do think that is true. Now, if we look at the comments, which I think BDK should be applauded for giving us all their written comments at their exhibition and the thread of comments in the Jersey Evening Post's, because a couple of them are extremely interesting in this context. Comment 6 on the J.E.P. thread: "Just give Trevor Hemmings back what he paid for it .." I am sorry. Sorry: "Just give the owner .."

The Bailiff :

Deputy , I hope you are not doing this deliberately.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

No, I am not doing it deliberately, Sir. That is what he says and I have got a ring around his star, I found the quote: "Just give .."

The Bailiff :

Please abide by my rules.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

I will do, yes, Sir. "Just give the landowner back what he paid for it plus any legal fees and maybe plus 10 per cent." That is just one of the comments and another one which is relevant is just to show that out there, there is a current of feeling around this question. The other comment, I will not read it out in full, but what it points out is why do we not simply tell the landowner to tidy it up? To tidy up the site and if we do not have the powers to do that as they would in the U.K. (United Kingdom), and as he would, because this particular contributor owns land in a National Park, then maybe we should have those powers, although I do believe that we do have those powers to tidy up. The reason I quote those 2 comments on the J.E.P. site is to show that there is a different perspective on this matter, to preface the question of price. We know that the contrast, and it is in the Council of Ministers' report, the contrast is between the £14.5 million or so, which the landowner is holding out for, and the less than £3 million minimum value which is the current use value. The Council of Ministers rightly refer to this danger implicit in compulsory purchase and of course the proposer has to take this on board and deal with it somehow. The third bullet on page 2: "The process of compulsory purchase will permit the public to acquire the property at a price which would be determined by an independent board of arbitrators, and then they mention the issue of fees, and the arbitrators will use, presumably, the current custom as a guide. My question is who does this protect? Does it protect the landowner, or does it protect the public? That of course comes back to the issue, does it have planning permission or not? This is the issue, is it not?

What is the price? The report of the Minister for Treasury and Resources makes it absolutely explicit. Until such time as the long-time use can be established and recognising that the owners consider its value to be that of a development site as opposed to a natural open space, it is not possible to report on an accurate value of the site. That is the point. We do not know, so what can we do to influence the value of the site? Now, I have read in one of these reports, or I have certainly heard in speeches, that we have to allow the planning permission to go ahead and then we will know the value because we cannot use the planning process to influence the price. But, on the other hand, we are happy to effectively allow the planning process to influence the value in the other direction, and I want to echo the comments of a previous speaker. Maybe we should start acting like a government. It is the rights of the landowner, who in this case bought the land purely as a speculative investment, compared to the right to enjoyment of the public and why do we not do the right and decisive thing? We could calculate the value of Plémont as part of his £30 million purchase of Pontins, divide up that asset and estimate how much he actually paid for Pontins. We could add inflation and perhaps his fees and negotiate on that basis. Why do we have to negotiate on the basis of an inflated value? Why do we not show that we mean business? A word on the actual wording of the proposition. People have commented on this and some have urged the Constable to, certainly take the 3 paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) separately, but to major on (a) and try and go soft on (b), but (b) does not instruct the Minister for Planning and Environment to use compulsory purchase. It asks us that he be empowered to acquire this land through compulsory purchase. In other words, it gives him the option, paragraph (b) gives the Minister of Planning and Environment the option of using compulsory purchase in the context of paragraph (a), which simply says get on with it like you have been told to do twice before. So, I just thought that needed to be made clear, that we can vote for (a) and (b). I wanted to change the terms of this debate. I think the price is about us taking control; the public, it is about us taking them with us and I think there is a willingness out there if we were to show leadership, as the Deputy of St. Ouen pointed out, if we were to show leadership on this there would be a willingness to join and chip-in with the funding of this. I did a bit of research at the Line in the Sand and, I will not go into the details, but I did ask people without prejudice various questions, one of which was would they be willing to put

their hand in their pocket and by a bit of Plémont for £100, and the vast majority said that they would, provided the price was right, 2 said. Provided the price was right, which is fair enough, you know, provided that the States are not stupid. So, let us dump the negativity and let us show some ambition and I just want to finish - I had a letter from a constituent last night, and this letter just sums it up: "We are writing to you because we have done all we can as individuals to try and save the Plémont Land in question. We have done all we can as individuals, it is over to you now. You lot in the States. We have attended the public meeting that took place at La Société. We signed the National Trust petition. We took place in the Line in the Sand. This is the only voice that we have, but as our elected States representative we can only ask you to speak on our behalf. Despite how good all the many modifications to the recent proposed plans for Plémont may be" and of course that is influencing people here "we feel very strongly that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity that the Island has to preserve some of its natural beauty and wildlife, which will be lost for ever should the recent proposed plans, or any future revised building plans, go ahead on this land in question. How sad it will be for the Island's population of visitors and future generations if our Island's natural beauty is allowed to disappear to developers. We hope that you and our politicians will listen to the people' who feel so strongly and who turn out as our only means of being heard, with our silent protest to developers for our Line in the Sand." I could not have put it better myself.

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

To an extent I do not disagree with many of the points that have been made in a number of speeches up until very recently, I shall say. But I shall cut my speech fairly short because I think Deputy Hilton has made a number of the points earlier, particularly on compulsory purchase in terms of what I was going to say earlier.

[10:30]

What I would like to say is I would like to re-emphasise the point, I do not think this is to be fair to the Connétable of St. Ouen, this is not just a Parish matter, it is an Island matter and it has been noted previously, it is a very important matter to bring to the States. However, I have to say that I agree with the Chief Minister that now is probably not the time to go down the compulsory purchase route. Land, as also has been said already, can always be negotiated separately, but compulsory purchase route I do not think is the way to go at this time. It is a head versus heart matter. My heart would dearly love to vote for acquisition, and in an ideal world I would love not to see it built upon, but my head says that at this time and these circumstances, I think we have unfortunately greater priorities and cannot really afford it. So, from that perspective I will not be supporting the proposition today.

7. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour :

Who would be a decision-maker? Well, it looks like we all would except for the Planning Applications Panel and the Minister who are outside the Chamber. I am wondering whether I should be out as well, because with the environmental hat on as part of the remit that goes with the job of Assistant Minister for the Environment, one would expect, would one not, that any issue for the acquisition of further land to be put back to natural vegetation or whatever, would be automatically supported. But, for those who have conducted a search among the voting patterns of the Members, you will note that on both occasions I did not vote for the public to acquire this particular site. I think it is only fair to explain my reasons and to explain the relevance of the voting pattern expressed on those former 2 occasions, and perhaps how I might be voting in this particular instance. We have heard from the Constable of St. Ouen - and he was reporting something that was most eloquently said, at the public meeting that I attended at the St. Ouen's Parish Assembly, by a parishioner - that to remove the blot on the landscape and to replace it with a further smaller blot on the landscape was a nonsensical policy. Well, it might well be so but Professor Rorschach knew quite a lot about blots and the art of determination as to what qualifies or quantifies a particular blot has to be deliberated upon and tied down. In fact, we have personality tests which go to show that the whole process is one of subjectivity based on what you see as a blot, and what you do not see. To knock one particular statement on the head, it is not apparent in my mind that the proposals to replace what some might consider to be a blot on the landscape with a smaller development, where two-thirds of the land has been given over to natural vegetation, would constitute a similar type of blotted development that the Pontins Holiday Camp is deemed to be by some Members. It is all, in my mind, about how we define our terms of reference in order to sift through all the information and evidence, to weigh-up in the best planning terms, what is the right way to go and to try and make sense of the thing. In my time on Planning, a number of years ago I did suggest to the organisation - the P.&R. (Policy and Resources) Committee - that we had at the time that perhaps a better way of dealing with the opportunities that might arise from time to time, in terms of the public acquiring particular pieces of land for strategic purposes, might well have been to have established a fund for that particular purpose and a policy to go with it, which would say in no uncertain terms the conditions that would have to be met in order to make requests to draw upon those monies. Now, at the time the suggestion was not taken up and indeed we lost, or the Island lost, valuable opportunities to acquire the Sacré Coeur buildings which could well have been used for further development for a fire service or a police service. Those proposals did not go ahead and we had follow-up proposals to place the replacement buildings for those 2 facilities on the Waterfront. Since then, the Waterfront land has been deemed to be too expensive to be developed for that type of infrastructure purpose and we are left with the requirement for, perhaps, a new police station somewhere else, in a place that has yet to be identified, and perhaps a bettering of this provision for our fire service. It is about thinking ahead and it is about strategy. It is about looking forward and placing yourself in position - as all the best chess players do - several moves ahead of the board so you know what is coming up. We do not do it. When it is suggested that we

do it, we still do not do it. So we end up with unsatisfactory, in my opinion, debates which cannot really be set in context and have to be voted upon in an unsatisfactory way, which generally means that we have to support propositions or not in emotional terms. I think that is wrong, because I quite like to make decisions based on the evidence and to rationalise, as far as I am able to do, bearing in mind that we all have different experiences to bring to decision-making and we are all going to come at the problems from slightly different angles. But unless we bed the decisions into an overall framework I think we are leaving ourselves open to perhaps making poor decisions which cannot be justified. I think that is wrong. We owe the Island a better class of decision- making. Going back to the planning time, we did have a policy as well for bad neighbour relocation. That was pretty much the same thing. So there are a lot of uses in town areas and elsewhere where particular businesses have been set up and they do have an environmental knock- on effect in terms of being seen to being detrimental to the residential qualities and the visual amenities and all the rest of it of the people living close to them. So rather than having ad hoc debates in this House to determine whether or not a particular bad neighbour use should be extinguished or not or relocated, we allow the planning committee of the time to develop a policy whereby those decisions could be taken by the officers who had the experience and the expertise to determine such things backed up by a political body to give support. So it is the framework that I think is all important. Personally, with a green hat on, I would love to buy all of the green land in the Island. I have said this on a number of occasions. But what would that mean? To purchase all of the greenfields for agriculture at the moment would cost at agricultural prices, say £5,000 a vergée, we are talking about an asset value of £150 million. What a good purchase, particularly if we could build on it, perhaps. I say that with a tongue in cheek. But what would be the value? Well it would certainly be higher than the £150 million, which may be a better place for our strategic rainy day monies to be invested. But you have to take these things and balance them. That is the difficulty of the job of wearing the environmental hat and indeed being in the planning business. It is a question of balance. That balance is made easier by having policies as strategies that allow you to knit all the decisions that you will have to make into one overall plan. What constitutes a blot? If one goes to St. Ouen 's Bay, personally I think the northern parts of the bay are absolutely delightful. But what have we done, in planning terms? We have the Milano Bars. The Milano Bars site was a run-down premises which Planning decided at the time - I was on the committee at the time - to ask the owner to knock down. So it does happen, because it was properly designated as being a blot. It was run-down. It was built on the coastline. So what did we do? We agreed at Planning that it constituted a poor development. We resisted the urge of the owner of the site to replace it with housing estates of fancy housing or an even bigger hotel or whatever, because we valued the proximity of that site to the coast. The coastal area in St. Ouen's Bay was part of the St. Ouen's Bay planning framework. So again you have a document to rely upon which sets out in black and white terms what we all consider to be important and then we work towards improving the area in those terms. So Planning asked for the Milano Bars to be knocked down. Unfortunately, we did not have the same luck with the Mariner Cottages, which were redeveloped for tourism purposes and subsequently came out of tourism, unfortunately. But there was a clear case for asking the owner of that particular site to do exactly the same thing that we asked for for the Milano Bars, but we did not do it. Again, we have an inconsistency of approach. One development is treated one way and another development is treated a different way, which was wrong, in my view. So what constitutes a blot? I personally think - and I think the Milano Bars is up for tender at the moment - why have we not got proposition set within the overall framework for our national park area? There are new proposals within the Island Plan to move the planning arguments and protections further on for these treasured green areas. Well we have moved from areas of natural beauty, to areas of outstanding natural beauty, to green zone designations, to double green zone designations and the latest thing within the Island Plan is to lump all of the double green zone areas which constitute, in essence, the coastal areas into a proposed coastal national park, with all the inherent protections that planning will be able to bring to bear in that area. If that happens and when the Island Plan is discussed in this House, if the

House supports that concept and we endorse the policies then that means that again we will have further restrictions, further qualitative improvements that can be made to the areas that we all consider to be worth saving or improving, which is a strategy game, it will be done within a context. Maybe then there will be a chance, if it has not been sold already or planning has not been forced because no States Member has come forward to put the Milano Bars site at a higher level than the built-on area that we have at Plémont for the Pontins Holiday site, higher up the list. We are stuck. There are qualitative subjective judgments that have to be taken for pretty well all pieces of land in the Island. I find it very, very difficult at this point in time to not support Plémont and allow perhaps the Milano Bars or other areas to be built on. What about Ronez? There is always going to be a context of overlap and conflict, if you like, between built-up areas and un-built up areas. Some Members would say that from an ecological point of view and an environmental point of view, the quarry at Ronez is something that constitutes a blot. But if you speak to the owners of the quarry, they have gone overboard, literally, to try and create environmental opportunities to soften the edges and improve opportunities for animals and plants within the area. So we have a balancing act that takes place between a commercial interest and the environment. That is fair. It is a judgment as to where you draw the line. I think that is where I have been coming from and going to. A lot of the arguments that I have been hearing yesterday and today tend to put the argument  right  at the edge of the scale, because emotive  arguments  right  at the edge of the spectrum of argument are the ones that sound good and perhaps kind of tug at the heart strings and allow us to make decisions which we cannot properly rationalise. I think that is wrong. It certainly is not the way that planning looks at things.

[10:45]

I do not think it is the way we should look at things. There is a saying about subjectivity: One man's meat is another man's textured vegetable protein. Perhaps I have paraphrased wrong. That for me sums it up. There is more than one way of looking at these things. What makes the northern part of the coastal landscape more important than the coastal area down at St. Clement or Grouville ? It seems to me that the east of the Island has suffered rampant development, if I can put it that way. That is probably using an emotive word, so I should not do it. We have got, in some terms, a de-natured coastal area which we are arguing in the north should be wholly un-built upon. But if you look at the number of buildings that have been built in the north - and they are dotted about - it is not as if the area is completely open. But we have had some arguments this morning suggesting that Plémont is an open development area. It is not. It has buildings on. It is licensed to operate for over 100,000 square feet of accommodation. That is just looking at the footprint of the site. If we translate that into housing terms, assuming that each house was 1,000 square feet. That says to you it is equivalent to 100 houses. We have had plans put in for more than that and less than that. The number of units has been whittled down and down. In my mind, there is an element of development on the site which in some Members eyes should be removed. I would agree with that. But it is a question of balance. The balance of replacing most of the site with open space and having a tasteful, in generally agreed design terms, of a small hamlet of houses is, I think, an acceptable compromise. But I would feel much happier if we could have a general policy of acquisition for any site across the Island, if indeed that is something that those Members who are supporting the wholesale knocking down of any development on the Plémont site are asking for. But I feel that they are not and they are making a special case out of Plémont without saying in absolute terms what makes the place that special compared to any other place. One final point, the proposition states in (a) that the States is to be asked to decide whether they are of opinion to approve, subject of the availability of the necessary funds voted by the Assembly, the acquisition by the public of the site known as the Plémont Holiday Village as identified, blah, blah, blah. Now, in choosing those words, I think the Constable of St. Ouen had highlighted his underlying reservations. Because had he thought - perhaps he will tell us when he sums up - that the acquisition of the site by the public should have been at any cost, then I do not feel that he would

have put in the extra words: "Subject to the availability of the necessary funds" which complicates the issue. If indeed, while being asked to approve subject to funding, in my mind that means that we have a bit of a problem, because if this House agrees to acquire the site, yet the necessary funds are not available, then what? We will have to go through the Assembly again and have another debate, but we will have done what we tend to do which is to decide on things incrementally. In my mind, that is not good decision-making. I think in this particular case there is a bit of a black and white issue as to whether or not we think in our minds of minds and hearts of hearts whether or not this Plémont site is at the top of the list of sites across the whole of the Island for general acquisition by the public, and this is the best site or the only site or the site that is on the table and unlikely to have dozens of other sites come forward so we can justify it as a special case to go and acquire. If we believe that (a) should really have said, to approve it full stop. Let us approve it and in its approval we will have to find the monies because we have given it our approval. There is a tacit assumption that if you approve something you are going to find the monies to do it. Pretty much what has been said about the request of the Minister for Planning and Environment to come forward with compulsory purchase of houses is really saying the same thing. I think the way it has been written - I did not write it and I do not know whether advice was given by the Greffier or not as to why it had to be framed in this particular fashion - leaves question marks in my mind that I think the proposer thought that perhaps generally it is a good thing to do as some Members have said. But in these hard times perhaps if the monies are not forthcoming then that will be the end of it. Nevertheless perhaps the Constable will be seen to have done his duty in representing the views of those who would wish for it to be bought at any cost. I think in those terms, I cannot approve (a) because I do not think a special case can be made for the Plémont site. We are not talking about all of the Plémont site, we are talking about the third that has been proposed to be built upon. Two- thirds under this proposed deal will go back to green space land anyway, so we are only talking about the last third, which is closer to the road, away from the coastal zone area. In fact, not in the coastal zone area, I think, on the map. So we are talking about whether or not that third should be acquired by the House, by the States or by the public or not. I do not think a case can be made in those terms, particularly when, in my mind, there are better sites down the road. What about the Watersplash? St. Ouen's Bay is in an important area. We heard the choir telling us not to build houses on sand the other day because they get knocked down and they will be rebuilt. But the Watersplash a wonderful area and it is in our designated national park area. What makes the last third of developed area at Plémont worth buying and the Watersplash not? It is that type of discussion I think that is entirely missing because this is brought as an ad hoc proposition outside of the context of proper policy. I am not saying whether we should have one or not, but personally I think we should.  We have not at the moment. I think that is enough justification as to how I will

probably vote.

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

It is not easy to follow such an eloquent speech from Deputy Duhamel, but just what part of: "There is no spare cash or once you start eating into your savings they are soon gone" do we not understand? Does the proposer intend that if this proposition were accepted the people of this Island and more importantly, perhaps, the parishioners of St. Ouen's would be left with an open area which they have to pay for and it may well look like the Bal Tabarin site. Does the proposer think it is appropriate to use greenfields for building when you already have effectively brown sites available for building, i.e. this site? While I can understand the dilemma the proposer had when making a decision to use a greenfield site for housing, I will not give up a brownfield site for homes, which this is. What right do Members have to compulsory purchase a private person's or company's property just because they decide it should be an open space? Why do we need to compulsory purchase it at all? Why do those who wish to buy it not just do so in discussion with the owner? It seems to me, we have this proposition before us because it will be the States who will have to pay for it. For goodness sake, the States is simply made up of representatives of the people. The bottom line is that the people are the ones who will ultimately pay. One can always