States Meeting Transcript - 23/06/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT THURSDAY, 23rd JUNE 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................4

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): tenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(10)) - resumption................................................................................4

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:....................................................................4

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:................................................5
2. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré of St. Lawrence : ..............................................6
3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:...............................................................8
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:........................................................8
5. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence:.......................................................9

6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:................................................................10
7. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................13

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(53)) ...........................................................................................22

1.2.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................22

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 15...............................................................23

1.3.1 Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................23

4. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-third amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(43)) ...........................................................................................24

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................24
2. Deputy S.Power:.......................................................................25
3. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................26

4. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................27
5. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :..................................................................27
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................28
7. Senator B.E. Shenton:..................................................................28
8. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................28
9. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................29 Deputy G.P. Southern :........................................................................30

Mr. T.J. Le Cocq Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: ..............................................30 Senator B.E. Shenton:........................................................................30 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................31 Deputy M.R. Higgins:........................................................................31 Deputy A.K.F. Green:........................................................................31 Deputy S. Power:.............................................................................31 Senator A. Breckon: ..........................................................................33

5. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 (Amd.24)) - paragraph 2................................................................34

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................34
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................37
3. Connétable P.F.M. Hanning of St. Saviour : ............................................37
4. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................37
5. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................38
6. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................38
7. Deputy T.M.Pitman:...................................................................39
8. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:....................................................39
9. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................39
10. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................40
11. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :....................................................41
12. Connétable J. Gallichan of St. Mary:................................................41
13. Deputy A.T. Dupre of St. Clement:..................................................42
14. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................42
15. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................43 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: .....................................................................44 The Attorney General:........................................................................44 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................44

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................44 The Attorney General:........................................................................45 Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :........................................................................45

16. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :...............................................46
17. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................46
18. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................46
19. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................51
20. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier : ....................................................52
21. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................52
22. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................53
23. Senator A. Breckon:.................................................................53

6. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(4))....57

1. Senator J.L. Perchard:..................................................................57
2. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................59
3. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John:...................................................60
4. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.................................................................60
5. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................60
6. Deputy A.K.F. Green:..................................................................61
7. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................61

8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................64
9. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................70
10. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:..............................................................72
11. Deputy T.M.Pitman:................................................................75
12. The Connétable of St. Clement:......................................................75
13. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................76
14. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................77
15. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................78
16. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................79

17. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen : ......................................................82

ADJOURNMENT................................................................................94

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): tenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(10)) - resumption

The Bailiff :

We return to debate upon Projet 48, the 10th amendment, lodged by Senator Perchard.

1. Senator B.E. Shenton:

Unlike most Members of this Assembly I do not have any amendments to this Island Plan. I do not have any long speeches up my sleeve. What I am doing is I am working through the plan fairly objectively. I am tending to put a lot of emphasis on the inspectors' comment and where the Minister has differed from the inspectors then I sort of look at it slightly more deeply. So with Thistlegrove I was a little bit surprised that what is, in effect, an already light industrial - I went up there to look at the site and it is mostly concrete up there anyway - was removed from the plan. I was trying to work out why this was. As Members probably know, ministerial government worries me intensely because of the lack of checks and balances, and we have heard all the way through that this is Freddie's plan. It is not the plan ..

The Bailiff :

The Minister's plan.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

I am glad you agree with me, Sir. [Laughter] We even now have a ruling from the Bailiff on that.

The Bailiff :

The Chair does not agree or disagree, but it likes Ministers to be referred to as a Minister or a Senator, not by Christian name.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

It is the Minister's plan. Clothier, with regard the Minister as body corporate, had this concept that the Minister was not only the Minister but he was also the Assistant Ministers, and they also had this unusual concept that the Council of Ministers would ultimately have control over a Minister and could overrule a Minister and so the plan would be the Council of Ministers' plan, but this is the Minister's plan, Senator Cohen's plan. So that obviously worries me because we are debating an individual's  view of the Island. The States of Jersey Development Company worries me because it means that we are moving a lot of control to the States and the States are going to become developers in their own right. So the States are going to be in direct competition with the people that want to develop this site here. I must admit that I do agree with everything said yesterday by Deputy Higgins and Deputy Martin and Deputy Southern , and various other Members, and Deputy Le Claire ..

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : Thank you, Sir.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

We do need more industrial sites. The inspectors have looked at this dispassionately. There is no N.I.M.B.Y.ism (Not in My Backyard) with regard the inspectors and I would just like to plant this seed in Members' minds. I did ask myself the question whether the Island Plan was being manipulated to the benefit of the States and the States of Jersey Development Company to the detriment of private developers and private investors. This was brought home somewhat by the

speech of the Minister for Treasury and Resources that said that we will need industry of this type, and it is industry that we want to look for investment for, but there are much better sites at the harbour, which is States-owned, and at the airport, which is States-owned and primed for development. He said we should look out for exciting news to come on this from the States-owned Jersey telephone company. I just sort of thought, well, I am a fan of smaller government. I think governments are there for education, for health, for social services, and so on and so forth, but it is not there to act as property developer, retailer, hotelier, and various other things. I know that my thoughts of small government is contrary to the big government aspirations of Senator Ozouf and Senator Maclean [Laughter] but they do seem to want Government to have, like a giant octopus, to have its tentacles in every area of Government. Was Thistlegrove removed for the right reasons or was it removed because the States owned better sites? So that is one question. I was a bit surprised that we did not hear from the Minister for Economic Development yesterday, and I am sure he is going to speak in this debate. But I do wonder, because he lives just off that photo you do wonder how .. and I thought, well, I will speak before him because that gives him the right to reply, because it would be very unfair to speak afterwards and he can have a go at me as much as he wants. But you do ask the question of how impartial he is to this development. He is meant to be driving forward private developments and you do sort of ask yourself the question, well, if you are a neighbour, if you are the N.I.M.B.Y., if you are the actual N.I.M.B.Y., how does that conflict? We love this conflict of interest thing and the Minister is very hot on conflicts of interest, as we know, but he is there to drive forward private investments. We seem to be coming around to this thing where running this plan, so the States of Jersey Development Company will have all the prime sites and then can cream off the business as they want at the prices they want, because there will not be any competition. These are the sort of thoughts that are running through my mind. I mean we have got a shortage of sites. I have been fighting .. we have still got problems with Reg's Skips. We still have not found a home for Reg's Skips. This is not a suitable site for Reg's Skips, I should point out [Laughter] before anyone has any ideas, but we have still got a problem with Reg's Skips and so we all want light industrial, we all want to provide jobs in this, that and the other, but there is this sort of "not in my backyard". So that was just the thought I thought I would leave with you because I think that investments should come mainly from the private sector because there is risk with investment, and I think the risk should be taken by the private sector. I will be asking a lot of questions over the waterfront in coming State sittings to prove that where we have taken the risk as a Government, we have not done very well out of it. So I leave you with that thought. If this is not removed from the Island Plan then there is always the harbour and the airport, and the lovely States of Jersey Development Company will come along and fulfil all our needs and, as with everything else, we can have big government, which is exactly what the Council

of Ministers wants but it is not what I want.

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

In those immortal words, Senator Shenton has taken away my speech. I am not quite into the elaborate conspiracy theories of the Senator and I have kept fairly quiet during most of this planning debate, but I have become increasingly concerned, and of course I did move a proposition a couple of months ago about the powers of the Minister for Planning and Environment.

[9:45]

Before we go any further I know we are going to have yet another debate, is he not a wonderful chap but ..? Let us assume .. and I do know it to be a fact that the Minister for Planning is indeed a wonderful chap, but that is not the issue. The issue is the concentration of power and the constant reference to "my plan, my plan, my plan" has really worried me as this debate has proceeded. There is a certain element that applies to this particular situation because it is quite obvious, according to the record, and I have got no problem with it, but the fact that it is entrenched in the record worries me. There was apparently a sudden change of heart after the Minister for Planning

and Environment had had a meeting with interested parties. Now all good stuff, that he should have meetings, he said yesterday; wonderful. But it struck me, a whole mass of evidence had been built up, a whole complex discussion had started to take place and then all of a sudden the meeting took place. There is an immense reliance on a BNP Paribas report on property light industry needs in the Island based, it should be said, on anecdotal evidence and of course we have all got that evidence in another direction. We have all seen the congestion at Rue des Pres, as the Constable of St. Peter said. We have all seen the congestion and the inappropriateness, as I think Deputy Power said of how some of these light industries are being shoe-horned into farming sheds. Of course farmers are under immense pressure to prove they have advertised to industry and we find these industries being put in obscure locations down the end of difficult to get at lanes, et cetera. So that is the other anecdotal evidence, so if you are going to say on anecdotal evidence that certain conclusions were reached we are entitled to say on our anecdotal evidence we reached other conclusions. I find this immensely worrying that the whole thing has got far too much of a personalised aspect to it. Much as I admire, and I would like to say again what a wonderful chap the Minister for Planning and Environment is, in case we have that debate yet again. The other thing is where I would totally agree with Senator Shenton, I went to look at the site in order that I could sit on the many fences at the Fencing Centre. I do not know what the Deputy of St. John was inferring when he said all these sheds and conservatories that appeared, as if they were some kind of asylum seekers' village had appeared all of a sudden in the midst of St. Lawrence. It did not worry me to the extent it did, but I was staggered that under our planning law this is classified as agricultural land, because it certainly did not have that appearance and while I totally accept, because we have seen this, the Deputy of St. John's view of the mobile chicken sheds, we have seen the shed issue in the countryside as sheds become bigger and sheds are left behind, which all of a sudden get put forward for housing development. There is a whole process you can see occurring. Like Senator Le Gresley, I was just amazed at the site, and to think that under our planning law this is agricultural land, because what it does, it begs the question and it will come up under the Samarés greenhouse debate, and under the greenhouse sites for which I often get lobbied, there is this slow battle of attrition goes on between the owners of these sites and planning. But, at no point it appears, other than that example that is always quoted at Maufant where a site reverted

to agriculture, at no point are definite steps taken to issue orders to return these sites to agriculture. So we are left with owners in a state of complete uncertainty and in a state of hopefulness that there will eventually be housing permission granted to some of them. But we are left with sites that never move on. So why are we pretending we have a policy of return to agriculture or confirming retention in agriculture, which as I said is really stretching the meaning of words in regard to Thistlegrove, when it appears we are not prepared to press the button and to say: "Yes, they will go to agriculture. Greenhouses will be dismantled, et cetera." We have really got to make up our mind in which direction we are going because people are being given very, very mixed messages.

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

I am going to try and bring people back to the proposition and also the speech by the proposer. I think people should go back and just look. To get the report we always know it is what is in the proposition and the proposer talked about I.T. (information technology) and data centres, which is all good stuff. Now he did explain why he could not do it, but could anyone please identify to me on either pages 2 or 3 of the proposition where it says anything about I.T. Now there is absolutely no issue with the use of the land that is presently up there in the case, especially part of it which is already zoned as an industrial site. There are local businesses up there and certainly I do, and I think we should all try to support them where we can, and that is people like the organic farm that is up there and the Fencing Centre. But the point about all this is that the amendment, especially if one looks at the back of the proposition, and on that map it is not entirely clear there, but the non- shaded box is what we are rezoning. That is more than double the size of what is up there at the moment. I am sorry, but if one goes back to the Island Plan on page 202, so the amendment, as we know, is about zoning it as light industrial and if one looks at pages 200 and 202 in the Island Plan

one will see that the existing much smaller rezoning of Thistlegrove is lumped in with Jersey Steel, Rue des Pres, La Collette, et cetera. We have got no issues whatsoever of the existing zoning and I cannot support something that doubles the existing zoning of light industrial and potentially to deliver something like Rue des Pres to this, which is a rural location. That is actually, I think, one of the bases that I understand concerns were raised by parishioners to the Connétable . We are talking about the Island Plan. Let us not try and go off at however many different tangents or whatever it is, but as I said, if you go through the proposition there is not one mention of anything remotely like I.T. It is specifically about light industrial and warehouse use. The only thing excluded is retail, unless it is ancillary. Equally and telling, and that is going back to the inspectors' report, if this was a new application it would not be recommended. It is identified as being a rural location, and therefore why make it any worse? The Deputy of St. Mary, in my view, has put his finger on one of the major issues, and that is traffic impact. He commented in certain places along that part of the main road one takes one's life into one's hands, and that is absolutely true. The inspectors do comment, interestingly enough, that the traffic impact assessments, so one has obviously already been done, does show an increase in vehicles; both light and heavy goods vehicles. So why would that be the case for a simple technical part, an I.T., a data centre, a disaster recovery centre? Why is there going to be an increase sufficient to be noted in the inspectors' report of heavy goods vehicles? Why is that the case for data centres and technology centres? Just to remind people because maybe people just drive up there, if they do, and do not think about it too much, but it is not just about the impact on the vicinity of the site, which has that sort of chicane infraction, as it were, and an absolutely lethal blind corner just before that site, but equally further down by Glencoe, for the sake of argument, where the roads narrow. Again, the point has been made, if you get 2 lorries coming down there at the moment, in 2 different directions, as it were, it is a nightmare, if you try going round there during the auctions or the rush hour. But the impact then goes much further down, all the way down that main road outside the Parish school and even Mont Felard where the record of accidents and collisions just seems to get longer all the time. So it is not about N.I.M.B.Y.ism. It is about possibly having a local understanding. I am about as far

away as you can get from the site without going into St. Aubin's Bay, yet I would have concerns. The proposer, I think, has made great play of being consulted in respect of the planning brief but I have to say I remember the Minister commenting years ago, it feels like, it certainly was not this week, but a significant time ago that he was not a great fan of such briefs because he did not necessarily feel they were that effective. I am sorry, I am not convinced by that argument. We can all sort it out at the brief stage. We have had those arguments before in the 2002 Plan. Deputy Higgins talked about a small increase. As I said, this is more than doubling in size. It is not just about sticking things in St. Helier. I will just point out to Senator Le Gresley, I am fully aware of the existence of La Providence and its location next to the Jersey Steel, as is the Constable, as is the Deputy of St. Peter, among a whole variety of other people who are in this Assembly starting from 6 years ago, at least, because that was one of the main concerns expressed when the estate itself was constructed, that he was referring to. Was the possible impact on Jersey Steel due to possibly noise complaints, and it is not called La Preference? But I go back to what I think was a very good speech by the Deputy of St. Peter where he utterly endorsed the principles of using the airport areas for such construction. That is not about N.I.M.B.Y.ism. That is a logical location because it has got better road links and it has probably got the, or one of the, biggest substations certainly in the west of the Island. One thing that data centres need is power, and reliable power. Just go and speak to Foreshore about that and who I would have thought were also a top notch provider and funny enough they were overlooked by the proposer in his speech, as Deputy Lewis noted, that some other providers were as well. I have to say I think the Deputy of St. John made a very clear case for leaving it well alone. What does happen to the Fencing Centre, which was basically the top right hand side of that photograph? Where would they relocate to or are we saying we are going to close them down? What happens to .. they certainly call themselves an organic farm, it is mixed, they have chickens and things as well, it is their sheds and their shop, et cetera, that are being rezoned here. Are we telling them to close down or do they have to move elsewhere? There is a need for those type of sites of business and this type of rezoning, I think, will just squeeze them out. Again, and I am certainly not a farmer, but one thing I have realised is agriculture is not just about green fields. They have to have locations to operate from. That is one of the locations. As I have said, this proposal doubles the site of the existing zoning, which these days would be an anomaly. It will have additional traffic impacts on some quite dangerous roads, and let us be very clear, and most importantly, this proposition, as it is worded, I understand the issues that the proposer had, is not about rezoning it as a data centre. It is categorically not. There may be mention in the report, the proposition is specifically about light industrial and warehousing; I.T. is not mentioned at all. Yet an inspectors' report does talk about an increase in heavy goods vehicles. I am sorry, as far as I am concerned, this amendment does not do what the proposer presumably very well intended holds out to do, and that is why I cannot support it.

3. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:

I did not initially intend to speak on this matter but having heard the debate and the direction which it has gone, I feel it necessary to do so. I have great concern that in this Assembly we are very good at standing up for principles, in this particular case the principle would be the principle in general terms of not allowing further development into the countryside on greenfields, and so on. Then when we come up to the first individual case, in which our principles are tested, we have a habit of keeling over and suddenly finding that there is an exception for some reason or another. I do not find that a very healthy trend in the debates generally which take place in this Assembly. I understand the concern of Deputies in St. Helier in relation to potential future overcrowding of St. Helier with much of the building going there, and so on. I understand those concerns, but with great respect for those who have talked about these issues in this context, this is not what this is about. This is about whether a particular site, which is slap bang in the middle of the countryside of St. Lawrence, should be singled out for special treatment as compared with a whole host of other sites, which have come to my mind, which I will try to recall during this speech. I have a real problem with that. I really cannot see the rationale behind singling out this particular site. There are other sites around which have this sort of mixture of things already.

[10:00]

There are 2 I can think of in Trinity . One I can think of in St. John's and others all over the place, so why are we singling out this site? Why are we going to put into the Island Plan something which treats this site quite differently to other sites of a similar nature? I do not think, with respect, that that is a rational approach at all. I cannot see any particular reasons why we should do that. Some have expressed concerns about the availability of development sites for commercial enterprise and so on and so forth. But we know that there is going to be a development up at the airport. It is not worked out in full detail yet. We know there is going to be expansion in those sort of areas. We know there is going to be provision made there, which incidentally is not in the Parish of St. Helier. So I simply cannot see the rationale. I am going to stick to the principle of not extending into the countryside unless it is absolutely necessary, there is a very strong reason and, frankly, this is going to convert what is an existing site into a much more industrial type site and I cannot support it.

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

Just very briefly, the reference made by the Senator to data storage in his opening speech, could he please in his summing up let us know whether he considered the remote backup and off-Island disaster recovery storage of data?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Sorry, Sir, I did not hear the question.

Deputy A.E. Jeune :

I will repeat it, if I may. Did the Senator consider remote backup and off-Island disaster recovery storage of data, et cetera?

5. Deputy E.J. Noel of St. Lawrence :

I was one of the Members who visited the site along with Senator Perchard and an independent planning consultant whose firm's logo is on the map in the report. If I may quote Senator Shenton from his opening speech, he referred to this as not being a greenfield. I agree with him, it is not a greenfield, but it could well be. Senator Shenton has also referred to that it is covered in concrete. The glasshouses on the bottom left-hand side are not covered in concrete. The Fencing Centre on the top left-hand side is not covered in concrete. The organic farm with its chicken sheds is not covered in concrete. So from my view there is not a lot of concrete on this particular site. Senator Perchard is putting the cart before the horse. He is asking us to rezone this site for data centre use and, in his words to me last week, only for data centre/I.T. uses. But what we are being asked to do is to rezone this for general commercial. Well, he cannot guarantee that only data centres and I.T. firms will locate into this site. There is already existing capacity for commercial activity on the existing site there that has permission that far greater density can be extracted from that. There is one main building contractor there that has good density, but the rest of the existing commercial zone can  be redeveloped  and substantial  increase  in  capacity generated  without  changing the footprint. As Deputy Le Fondré has already said, in fact, if you look at the very back page of the amendment it is not doubling the size, the area to be rezoned is twice the size of the current zone. So we will end up with an industrial site 3 times the current size of what is already there. That is in the middle of the Island. Not in the middle of St. Lawrence; it is in the middle of the Island. The site may have a fibre optic connection - Jersey Telecom have a unit on the site - but it lacks the most important thing for a data centre and that is power. There are no adequate power facilities in that area and major cable would have to be run from something like Five Oaks or La Collette up to this site. That would be difficult to do. It would be disruptive and it would be expensive. Senator Perchard claims that Rue des Pres is not suitable for data centres, and that was in his speech. In fact, there are several there already and I believe that J.T.'s (Jersey Telecom) new data centre down there has spare capacity in it. It is not full yet. So I do not know where the massive demand for these acres and acres of data centres are going to come from. In my private business I have a number of I.T. consultants and I have been discussing this issue with them over the last week or so. They inform me that within 5 to 10 years data centres could quite easily be outmoded. Technology is moving away so you do not necessarily even need a big physical infrastructure. By example, Microsoft has 2 data centres in Europe, one in Ireland and one in Holland. These data centres are built inside purpose-built containers. They can be moved within an hour. That is the future of data centres, not acres and acres of concrete and warehousing. Senator Perchard says that there is a demand in the marketplace. Only last week for the second week in a row on Wednesday night's J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post), which is the commercial night for property, there was a warehouse at Rue des Pres, quite a substantial warehouse at Rue des Pres, vacant, asking for tenants. So where is this massive demand? As the Minister for Planning and Environment has already said, the demand from local businesses will be fulfilled by his relaxation of current planning regulations whereby existing industrial sites can expand by 5 per cent without planning permission. It will come from reconfiguration of our fulfilment industry that is going to happen, regardless of whether or not we continue to have the exemptions from the U.K. (United Kingdom) for V.A.T. (value-added tax) because the type of goods that people will buy in fulfilment are moving away from D.V.D.s (digital versatile discs) and C.D .s (compact discs) just to electronic bits of information. You do not need the physical article anymore. Naturally, regardless of whether or not we have our V.C.R. (video cassette recorder) in place or not, the fulfilment industry is going to contract and that is going to provide extra capacity. But I would like to go back to this particular site. On that site are serviceable glasshouses I believe that are cultivated currently, and a poultry farm, a very successful poultry farm, I believe. Where would these activities go to? They would have to go to other greenfield sites, and I refer to this as a greenfield site because with a JCB or maybe 2 and a few

tipper lorries, the hard core that is down there at the moment, because it is not concrete, could easily be removed and those could easily become greenfields again. This is not N.I.M.B.Y.ism, if there is such a word. Like the Constable of St. Lawrence and my fellow Deputy , we live about as far away from this site as we possibly could. Deputy Higgins made a comment that we would say this because we live in St. Lawrence. You can make a similar argument about the St. Clement Deputies and the sites that are coming up for discussion later on in this debate about the St. Clement site. This is an Island site. It is smack in the middle of the Island. It is not smack in the middle of St. Lawrence; it is smack in the middle of the Island. We should be protecting it. We should be going along and agreeing with Senator Le Marquand. We should be looking at the principles first. The principle is that we will not be building on greenfield sites. In my mind, this site could quite easily become a greenfield site.

6. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I was not going to speak on this particular topic. I did mention at the beginning of the debate - Sir, I think you were in the Chair - that I felt there was a potential conflict of interest for myself because I live relatively close. It was the comments of Senator Shenton that made me decide that I ought to just make a few observations. Just to be clear, I live about a quarter of a mile or so, a little bit more, to the southeast of this particular site, which is off the map. In fact, I live fairly close to the Deputy of St. John, perhaps closer than I might choose necessarily or perhaps he might choose. [Laughter] I do, like some other Members have mentioned, like chickens and, indeed, eggs. But what Members might not be aware and certainly I do not think Senators Shenton or perhaps Perchard are is that chickens attract flies and vermin, rats in particular, and there are rats in all sorts of areas. [Laughter]

Senator S.C. Ferguson: Even this House.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

In fact, I employ a pest man to control the vermin in the countryside. I would also point out to Members, though I am not sure whether all Members can see clearly the map on the wall behind us, there is, in fact, below the blue section at the bottom right-hand corner you might be able to pick out a swimming pool. It is a neighbour who obviously is immediately adjacent to this particular industrial site. The lady of the house happens to be a teacher at my son's nursery school. She did approach me at one stage pointing out the difficulties they have had with flies since the chicken farm has expanded in recent years. They have to put nets up. They cannot open the windows in summer. Health protection are very well aware of this site. The point I am making is that chickens are a problem.  They do present certain issues for close neighbours. So it is clearly obvious that the development of this site as a new light industrial development would greatly improve the position of that neighbour. It would certainly greatly improve the position, I suspect, from my own personal point of view if I want to take a personal position on this. You might, therefore, draw the conclusion it is rather strange that I am standing suggesting that this is not the best thing to do in terms of moving to light industrial. From a personal point of view it may well be. I pulled out yesterday, in fact, or the day before an old aerial photograph of the site and I found that aerial photograph and I have it here. Members can have a look at it afterwards. It will be too late obviously but I have it all the same. It is an aerial photograph which shows that the red area that we can see on the map behind us, about 80 per cent of it in the 1980s was greenfields. In fact, about half of the strip which is now the chicken area was greenfields as recently as 7 or 8 years ago. There has been significant development on the site and I guess that is just the way these things go. But we do need to bear in mind that the chicken production that occurs on the site is nevertheless important from an agricultural point of view and another responsibility I have as part of Economic Development is agriculture. This particular farm is one of the top 3 producers of chickens in the Island. All I would say is that that business is going to have to be relocated, I would assume,

somewhere otherwise we are going to lose quite a percentage of our chicken and local egg production. I think that would be a shame. I think it was Deputy Le Fondré who also pointed out the fact that there is a farm shop there, an organic farm shop. That indeed would also need to be relocated. I think what we need to bear in mind, if there is going to be relocation of this particular business, it is going to take other agricultural land in the Island which at the current time is greatly needed for sectors within agriculture such as potato. There is not enough land for the current demand and development of the potato industry, another important area that we need to bear in mind. I was invited by the Minister for Planning and Environment to attend a meeting in January and I know that Senator Perchard has mentioned the meeting in January. I was asked to attend the meeting in my capacity at Economic Development because there was a demand survey done in 2008-2009 on light industrial demand in the Island.

[10:15]

That particular report showed at that stage there was 1.5 million square feet of unmet capacity for light industrial in 2008-2009. What the Minister for Planning and Environment was keen to see was what the latest demand was. The point has been made, yes, there is a recession, but notwithstanding that what is the current demand? We asked BNP to look at that position and it has been pointed out I know by Deputy Le Hérissier and others that it is anecdotal evidence, but nevertheless it comes from industry, industry who are at the frontline and have a good feel as to what the demand is. What that review has shown or that report shows is the demand has fallen by around about 95 per cent in the last couple of years. It is down to about 50,000 to 75,000 square feet of demand for light industrial space. Now, that has clearly been affected by the recession, I have no doubt. It has also been impacted by changes that we are seeing in the low value consignment relief area. I am aware that as we move forward we will need more space for light industrial. I have absolutely no doubt about that. This is where curiously I both agree and disagree with Senator Shenton behind me, because I think we should be looking at utilising available space, available States space, at the airport, at the harbour and other buildings that the States have. Not for one moment because I think the States should start running businesses or trying to capitalise on a particular market, but I think if we have the land we should go into partnership with the private sector, allow them access to the land, allow them the opportunity to commercialise an opportunity for the benefit of the taxpayer of Jersey. Surely that is what we should do first. It seems to me the obvious thing to do, particularly when that space exists. As others have said, and clearly I would say that from my position as Minister for Economic Development, diversification of the economy is key. As I have said, I have no doubt in the future the demand may well have fallen dramatically. It may well only be 50,000 to 75,000 square feet. I believe we should work on utilising States-owned assets with the private sector to develop the opportunities that exist in developing our e-commerce sector, which has significant opportunity as we move forward, data centres, I.T. and so on. I have no doubt that we will continue to work with businesses who are looking to capitalise on those particular opportunities. I would also say I would like to just raise a point on some of the comments, quite extraordinary comments, that Senator Le Main made yesterday. I was disappointed because I was rather nice about him the other week and nevertheless he made some rather disparaging comments about what we were doing to support small and medium-size businesses. He was saying there is no space available and small businesses are having to work out of inappropriate sheds in the countryside. Well, yes, he is right, some are, and I think that just demonstrates the innovation of the local business community. They will work and develop opportunities in all sorts of strange places and grow as companies like Play.com have done. They started in a very small inauspicious arrangement when they started out, working from home and developed into one of the largest companies in their field in the world. But what we have done is we have invested something close to £2 million from the Economic Development budget into supporting small and medium-size businesses. We have opened up, which the Senator may not be aware, an incubator facility in town which provides office space specifically for small businesses wishing to get a start in life that do not have to commit to long leases and expensive costs.

The Bailiff : Senator

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am coming rapidly back to the conclusion, but I just thought I would make that point because clearly there was some misinformation from the Senator and I am sure he is not aware of these developments. In summary on this particular proposition, it is my view that however compelling this site may appear and however seductive at face value it happens to be, the reality is despite what some Members may have said it is largely greenfield site that has been developed in recent times, could quite easily go back to that if we so wish, and the demand for light industrial has reduced dramatically. That could be soaked up with States assets. It could be done quickly. I know Deputy Fox raised the point this site is ready to go. Well, I am not so certain it is ready to go from a practical perspective for the simple reason there are at least 3 owners involved in the site. How the arrangement would be met in terms of putting that together into a business package, a planning application and so on, and how the site would be split up and commercialised I do not think is absolutely clear at the moment. I would suggest that indeed the site of the airport, where the master planning has already been undertaken, where we desperately need additional revenue sources, is as equally ready to go as this particular site that we see behind us. So I am not convinced that it would fill a gap in the short term or medium term. That is all I wish to say on this subject, but I would urge Members at this stage, one final point, I think it was the Attorney General yesterday said that changes can be made through the life of this plan and if indeed it was thought that this or any further site needed to be reconsidered, that is something the Minister for Planning and Environment could do in the future. I think that may be perfectly appropriate.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

Can I get a point of clarification? The Minister was talking about data centres and the need for them and so on. It seemed to contradict. What he seemed to be saying about the I.T. industry and the requirements of it seemed to contradict what Deputy Noel said. Are they talking from the same hymn sheet? Are we moving forward with data centres, I.T. and so on? He seemed to indicate that there was a need for it; he seemed to indicate that it was not.

The Bailiff :

I cannot see that that is a point of clarification, Deputy , at all. That is a point saying that one speech does not agree with another, which is a point of comment.

Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

I believe I heard the Minister say that demand for this type of space was 1.5 million square feet. Is that what the Minister intended? Because 1.5 million square feet in the report refers to existing floor space.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I did make that comment and if I have misread it then I have made a mistake. But as far as I was aware the available space had reduced dramatically from that level to around about 50,000 to 75,000 square feet, but I stand to be corrected on that.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

No, the true figure is demand has reduced from 270,000 square feet to 75,000 or thereabouts square feet, not from 1.5 million.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Sorry, the Deputy is absolutely correct. My mistake.

Senator B.E. Shenton:

Could I just ask the Minister to clarify? He mentioned that the chicken farm would have to move elsewhere. Is the Minister not aware that we have overproduction of eggs on the Island largely due to his own department giving out grants to new entrants into the industry?

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

It will not come as a surprise to Members that that is simply not true. We import, and that is why Marks & Spencer imports; that is why the Co-op sell both local eggs and import. We do not produce enough to satisfy local demand.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier :

On a point of order, is it not correct to say that that is incorrect rather than that that is not true? Because when one says that is not true, that implies one is lying.

The Bailiff :

I do not think in context the Minister was saying it was a lie. He was saying it was incorrect. Very well, does any other Member wish to speak? Then I call upon Senator Perchard to reply.

7. Senator J.L. Perchard:

Senator Routier on Tuesday said it was the longest day. Well, with the debate not concluding last night, I pondered most of the night on how to deal with my summing up, whether to be brief [Approbation] and I suspect had the debate concluded last night I would have been brief. I made notes and I would have answered the points raised. I have considered some of the more material issues raised by Members and I will address them, as is my right to do. The Constable of St. Lawrence and the 2 Parish Deputies spoke against this amendment and understandably so. They have been consistent in their objection and Members will, I am sure, not be surprised by their objection. Deputy Kevin Lewis rightly pointed out and sought clarification about my assertion that the fibre optic capacity at Thistlegrove was far greater than that at the airport and Rue des Pres. I have sought out information overnight and I understand and I will quote from an email I had this morning: "It is correct since Jersey Telecom has installed a 144 rack system (which is substantial) but is mainly available for their own use to support their backup and existing network." So Telecom has high capacity down there but as I am advised it is a 144 rack system, which I know Members will find very interesting .. [Interruption] [Laughter] No, not rats, rack. Senator Cohen, my friendly Minister, confirmed that it was his plan. Sir, like you, it is his plan and that despite the clear recommendation of the inspectors that Thistlegrove should be rezoned for light industrial that their recommendation was not binding on the Minister and his plan. He said that the planning inspectors had simply arrived at a different conclusion to him over the site. The Minister rightly reminded us of his newly approved 5 per cent expansion policy for which it simply means for businesses expansion can take place without planning permission. It could take place before, of course, with planning permission but now it can take place without. He said it could be a solution to accommodate the pent-up existing demand and the requirements for new emerging tech-com businesses. I know he did not mean that in all seriousness. This is no solution. The 5 per cent policy is no solution to solve this requirement for emerging businesses. Deputy Higgins accused

the Connétable of St. Lawrence of N.I.M.B.Y.ism. He recognised the need for more light industrial space and demanded some relief for St. Helier and its residents. Deputy Tadier asked a series of questions which I wrote down as fast as I could. The first one was a very important question which I want to clear up. I have no financial interest or any interest other than Jersey's interest in the rezoning of Thistlegrove. Having lived in the Island all my life, Members will not be surprised that I know the 3 owners of the property that sits within the red lines of the boundary. They are not personal friends of mine. I am polite to them when I see them and they to me. I can categorically say I have not been encouraged by them and I am not doing it for them. The Deputy asked about

how the owners would handle their internal affairs, as did Senator Maclean just a moment ago. He asked a little bit tongue in cheek, I believe, would they adopt a socialist model. I think this is a tricky question and I am afraid I have no answer to it, except to say that the 3 owners agreed to the Planning Department's suggestion that their property be included in the Minister's 2009 draft Island Plan. I will repeat: the 3 owners unanimously agreed to the Planning Department's suggestion that their properties be included in the Minister's 2009 draft Island Plan. Senator Le Main said that the States for many years had failed in their duty to provide sites and that we had failed to encourage small businesses. How right he is. He was frustrated that there was no policy in support of the development of premises for light industry and asked the Council of Ministers to urgently address this matter. I say to the good Senator that today is the chance for the States to do just that. He spoke about the lack of supply which has the effect of driving up rental prices. He is absolutely right again. High rents mean high costs. High costs mean high consumer prices. There is no doubt that Jersey's terribly expensive commercial rental prices are simply passed down to the ordinary men and women in the street. Like me, Senator Le Main questioned the idea that the airport and the S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) would ever deliver viable, useful sites that make a real difference to the economy and the cost of doing business on the Island. Deputy Southern , my new best friend [Laughter], spoke in favour of my amendment. He with a clinical precision dissected and analysed the inspector's remarks. He explored the options available to provide suitable sites and just like the inspectors, just like me, arrived at the same conclusion, that Thistlegrove should be retained in the plan. Senator Ozouf , strangely, indicated his opposition to this, our opportunity to provide sites for bespoke new buildings, for high quality businesses that will help stimulate a diversified economy and create much needed new jobs.

[10:30]

Remarkably, he went on to say that redundant agricultural buildings provided an important source of supply. The notion of a leading economy like ours relying on old agricultural sheds to provide for emerging industries is, frankly, laughable and simply not tenable. I say to the Minister for Treasury and Resources take a look at Guernsey, who are moving into this market by providing buildings for these emerging businesses, before you advise tech-com businesses to move into unused cow sheds. He then also insisted that La Collette would, contrary to the clear advice of the inspectors and many professionals, provide light industry land. Again, I say - and the inspectors confirmed - that La Collette, like the airport, is not going to deliver at any time in the future. But in the case of La Collette, because of Buncefield, the site will not deliver during the 10-year lifetime of this plan. I am not really sure what is driving the Minister for Treasury and Resources' opposition. Senator Shenton hinted at it, but there may be an ulterior motive. Is it the recently constituted States of Jersey Development Company who want to monopolise the market for new industrial land, just as they seem to want to do for housing? Is he saying that the supply of land for these uses should only be provided on States-owned land? Is the Minister trying to create and capture a restricted market and is this really the way for the States to behave? Deputy De Sousa and Deputy Trevor Pitman spoke enthusiastically in support of my amendment, for which I thank them. [Interruption] [Laughter] Oh, I beg your pardon, Deputy . Probably I was confused by the thought of the Body Shop and my pencil went wayward for a while. My good friend the Deputy of St. John, who lives just about 150 metres from North End Vineries, to the northwest of North End Vineries, knows the area terribly well. He spoke genuinely, though, as did some other Members, about his concern over the loss of greenfields to agricultural development, then which sometimes lead on to commercial development or housing development and that any rezoning in this case may simply result in an application for another chicken farm on another field. I have here a copy of a letter because I too share the Deputy 's concern. I spoke to the chicken farmer recently and asked him this very question. I asked him to put his intentions in writing. I will cut out the first paragraph; he writes: "In the event that our site is rezoned to form part of a larger business park enterprise, we confirm that we would NOT intend to move our present business to another site as we would in the event cease trading." Signed, the director of La Bienvenue Farm. I know about this. It is tough, as Senator Shenton said this morning, being an egg producer at this moment in time in Jersey. Along with ever rising cost of animal food and the availability of cheap imported factory farmed eggs in the U.K. means that the economics of egg production on the Island simply do not stack up. They do not stack up. The Deputy also suggested that the Fencing Centre might be returned to agriculture. I remind Members that the Fencing Centre comprises a large area of buildings surrounded by gravel and concrete yards. It has on it established planning permits to manufacture and retail on that site. It has on it established planning permits to manufacture and retail. This plan proposes that it is returned to Green Zone. The Deputy also suggested that the tomato production unit at North End Vineries could be renewed and crops grown. Well, I suggest that this is highly unlikely to happen because even with modern energy efficient glass, due to high energy prices, Jersey is no longer viable for tomato production. The tomato industry, Members, has gone. Some modern glass buildings are still desirable for specialist plant production if they are of sufficient size and well located. North End Vineries is neither. This glasshouse site is old, inefficient and no longer viable. Finally, I remind the Deputy that, despite his local knowledge, mains water supplies finishes on Route de St. Laurent on the S bends just about 150 metres before the entrance to La Bienvenue Farm. Senator Le Gresley pointed at the site map behind us and reminded Members that this is not a greenfield site. He spoke of his concerns over the levels of unemployment and the need for Government to do all it can in an effort to provide jobs. He asked me if the owners were in agreement and I can confirm that I have sought their formal views on that to help Members in their decision-making. I have a letter from the 3 owners jointly signed by them which basically says: "We have been discussing the future of these sites with the D.O.E. (Environment Department), Planning/Economic Development, various States departments and many others since 2005-2006. This process started when Thistlegrove and North End Vineries

made a pair of separate applications to demolish, to replace some existing redundant buildings upon the site, and we were advised by Economic Development and Planning to withdraw these until the new Island Plan debate." I will hand this letter to Senator Le Gresley because he did ask the question. The Assistant Minister for the Environment, the Deputy of St. Peter, is quite rightly as Assistant Minister supportive of any proposal to use the airport for betterment and to better manage the airport facilities. He knows deep down the airport is limited in what it can deliver and he knows that it will be a long time before it can deliver. Connétable Butcher indicated that he would not support the amendment because

The Bailiff :

The Connétable of St. John .

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Yes, that is right, I should have written that. It was getting late by then. The Connétable of St. John indicated that he would not support the amendment because it would result in a displaced chicken farmer reapplying for a new chicken farm. I think I have covered that and I hope he is satisfied. But in the event with this new plan, if it is approved, it is within the gift of the Minister to refuse an application on a Green Zone. The plan states there will be a strong presumption against proposals for agricultural buildings unless the proposal is essential to the proper function of a farm holding. I suggest because the existing farm holding will have been erased, the owner simply would therefore not be able to comply with this policy. I hope the Constable's fears are allayed and he will consider supporting me. Deputy Wimberley unfortunately is not in the Chamber, but he asked me

The Bailiff :

The Deputy of St. Mary .

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I was getting very tired. The Deputy of St. Mary, who unfortunately is not in the Chamber, asked me a series of questions and he repeated them by email last night. I felt I needed to address them.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Just for clarification, Deputy Wimberley has an appointment. He did apologise that he could not make it.

The Bailiff :

The Deputy of St. Mary has an appointment.

Deputy M. Tadier :

Sorry, yes, the Deputy of St. Mary has an appointment, so he did want to be here but he has asked me to be vigilant for the answers. [Laughter]

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I invite all Members to be vigilant to what I am about to say. As to be expected, the Deputy of St. Mary made some very relevant points and has asked some very pertinent probing questions. He asked why, if the existing uses are largely retail and manufacturing already, would we need to rezone this land. The answer is clear. The answer is the Minister, instead of rezoning this land for light industrial purposes as he proposed in his White Paper, now intends to rezone this site - this site - Green Zone. This site. The Minister intends to rezone Green Zone. We already know that there is retail and manufacturing permission granted up here, so I am not quite sure how we are going to be able to rezone this Green Zone. Not surprisingly, the Deputy then asked a series of questions about the uplift in land value, whether the public ought to have a share in this and what if the site was later developed for housing, whether the public should share in this uplift in value. In my opinion, the rezoning by itself would not result in an increase in land value. This increase in land value would only occur once planning permission had been granted and because of the types of uses. [Laughter] Let me explain. [Interruption] [Laughter] I think the zoning itself will not increase the land value. Only planning permission will increase the land value. Members must be under no illusion. This site already has a significant value. However, we need to acknowledge that the existing land uses do currently have, particularly the Fencing Centre, a significant value. Not wishing to mislead the House, there is no doubt that planning consent will raise the value significantly. Presently there is no mechanism for the public taking a share in the uplift of land values as a result of rezoning. This is very much an ideological issue which the Deputy of St. Mary intends to promote. I agree it needs consideration. This does need serious consideration. This windfall of a zoning fortune is an opportunity that the Minister for Treasury and Resources and this House need to consider. But we need to provide employment opportunities. This is about zoning a site to provide employment opportunities. While the Deputy concurred with the view that we do need purpose-built buildings, he made a very good point over the transport issues relating to the site. It is true that the site is relatively remote and we were advised yesterday that the bus route to service the area is poor. However, the site is central in the Island and could, therefore, be regarded as a good location to travel to. Also, if the site were to be rezoned the developer would be obliged to prepare a travel plan, which would include requirements to improve the bus service for this route, including a new bus stop and shelter together with a package of other highway improvements. The Minister would almost certainly make this conditional on any subsequent permit. The provision of cycle racks at the expense of staff car parking spaces would be encouraged. Cycling and the travel plan would identify safer routes for cyclists to use. Employers would also be encouraged to promote car share among its employees and incentives would be given accordingly. The Deputy also rightly predicted that warehouse distribution uses would cause increased heavy goods traffic on the road network. However, as I explained yesterday, the Minister through the development framework is able to specify the uses that this site can or cannot be

developed for and will, therefore, determine the type of level of traffic generated by the site. Clearly, for the reasons the Deputy has given, warehouse and distribution would be inappropriate uses of this site. Deputy Martin questioned again the 5 per cent policy and she questioned whether it would be able to provide any useful additional sites and offered her support.

[10:45]

Deputy Le Claire reminded us of his school days and the first computer at his school and the changing face of global connectivity and access to fibre optics throughout the world and how the industry is changing rapidly. He said that those days when he was a schoolboy just a simple computer was something to behold. Well, I say to the Deputy the pace of change is accelerating and the opportunities for Jersey to get on board are here and now. Deputy Power spoke about inefficient and inappropriate buildings being incompatible with modern business. He is quite right. Not only are they damp, dark, dirty buildings, inefficient when operating a business, they are unpleasant places in which to work, often cold and without decent facilities for staff, decidedly unpleasant. This is Jersey. We can and must do better for our businesses and their staff. Improving standards and increasing the supply of modern eco-friendly buildings will ensure that unsightly, impractical buildings will fall out from the bottom of the chain and, therefore, be ripe for investment and redevelopment. Deputy Fox, interestingly, referred to his first years in the States when he served on the Planning and Environment Committee, when he said proposals for using the airport for industry were being mooted. Yet he said 12 years later on we have advanced no further, we are still talking about it. The inspectors said that they had not seen even a preliminary layout and were sceptical about how much the plan could provide at the airport. The Deputy did, however, express a repeated concern made by Members that the rezoning would be a stepping stone to obtain housing on the site. I can assure the Deputy that policy EIW1 would protect against this. Clearly, within the boundaries of these sites the introduction of non-industrial uses will not be permitted unless related to and ancillary to the industrial use. Basically, policy EIW1 will not allow housing on these sites unless they are related to the sites. The Constable of St. Peter, who is taking the party line, said he would support me if I could prove demand. I intend to address this matter shortly. I hope the Constable will be patient. The Connétable of St. Brelade said that he was concerned that any redevelopment on the site would force out existing businesses as they would have to relocate elsewhere. I remind the Connétable that there are only 3 businesses on the site that I propose for rezoning and they are all owner occupier businesses. I understand that the proprietors, if they cease trading on their premises, will retire. One has written to me saying that that is his intention, the other is of retirement age, the glasshouse grower, and has no intention of continuing, and the third business said he will either retire or take up one of the buildings should they ever be built. I think after the Constable of St. Brelade I want to just speak about those who

contributed this morning.

Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade :

If the Senator would be kind enough to give way, would he just confirm that applies to the subtenants of the owners?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

There are no subtenants of the owners on the 3 sites that are proposed for rezoning within the red boundaries of this rezoning plan. The Minister may be confused with the subtenants of the owners on the existing industrial site. There are no subtenants of the owners within the red lines.

Deputy E.J. Noel:

I was under the impression that the owner of the glasshouses sublets those glasshouses out to another grower.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

Deputy Le Hérissier  [Laughter] The Deputy of St. Lawrence, Deputy Noel, is under the impression about a lot of things this morning, he indicated. Sometimes the Deputy would be better to ensure that he is fully aware of the facts. [Members: Oh!] Deputy Le Hérissier - and I thank him for visiting the site, as I do many other Members - was very interested in the fences when we went up there. He confirmed to Members that this is already a quasi industrial site. This is not a greenfield. Senator Le Marquand took the party line and spoke on the importance of being principled. He spoke on the importance of being principled. I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Le Marquand. He said he could think of many other sites, some in Trinity , some in St. John. It is a shame he did not name them, and it is a shame he did not inform the inspectors of these sites because they do not know about them, nor do the Planning Department. If he is referring to Mont Mado or Springside, they are full. They are full, full and bursting, waiting lists included. Deputy Jeune asked did I consider remote backup and off-Island data backup. Well, the point is no. The point is Jersey wants to host these businesses. Jersey should be hosting these businesses and not considering offloading these businesses. This is exactly one of the areas we are trying to develop. Senator Maclean, despite saying he was only inspired to speak when Senator Shenton spoke, managed to produce a hastily prepared speech from which he read, so he writes quicker than I did last night. I simply am unable to comprehend as to why our Minister, responsible for the Island's economic development, should oppose this amendment. I just cannot understand it. This is seriously worrying. If rezoned, the worst case scenario would be that this site is not developed. If the site was not developed, presumably it would be because of economic reasons. I suggest the threat that it could at some time be developed would help drive down rental prices on other sites. So, even if it was not developed, the threat that it could be developed would help drive down rental prices on other sites, assisting our Jersey businesses to be more profitable and viable. Alternatively, I consider the best case scenario is that the site is developed and becomes a vibrant, successful hub for our new emerging fourth pillar of our economy. Senator Maclean said that demand had fallen by 95 per cent. I cannot argue that figure, but it certainly is not a message supported by officers of his department. I would like to quote from the number 2 at Economic Development, who wrote in the Jersey Business Brief last month: "Future growth could come from administering global businesses, particularly in the oil and mineral sector, which has already shown interest in the Island. The administration of intellectual property rights could also produce opportunities and the prospects for e-gaming and the technology involved are so strong that 70 companies attended a recent meeting on the subject." This is Economic Development. While I am quoting, I am going to quote from Mr. Michael Boarer, who wrote about the fulfilment industry in the same magazine in June, this month. I just quote a paragraph: "Paradoxically, setting up a business outside of the Island is a demonstration of loyalty to the Island. These companies continue to prosper, continue to offer employment to the Island residents, and by retaining a head office function in Jersey, the tax revenues return home to the Jersey Comptroller." This is Mr. Boarer writing about fulfilment, very bullish. I am concerned; it was the Minister for Economic Development who put the cards on the table. He said - and I cannot quote him exactly - the obvious thing to do is to utilise States-owned assets first. So far as Senator Maclean is concerned, planning principles go out of the window; they get thrown out of the window; we develop States-

owned assets regardless of planning considerations.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

I am sorry, I did not say that.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I remind the Senator that this is the Island Plan debate, not a debate on fiscal strategy. I am going to finish now [Approbation] and help Constable Refault, who asked me to persuade him of the requirement. He looked me in the eye and said if I can persuade him that there is a genuine requirement he would support me. A genuine demand does exist and I will qualify this by referring to the Minister's draft plan that we are debating today, which states there is a demand for 20 acres

of rezoned light industrial land in today's draft plan. The evidence of the Economic Development Department's second Examination in Public agreeing – the Enterprise and Business Development Manager again, sorry, but I must quote him - that the demand for light industrial space was still significant. Evidenced; happened only 3 weeks ago. The findings of the BNP Paribas report, which Minister Maclean hastily arranged in January this year in order to support the assertion that S.o.J.D.C. should take over the world, disappointed him. I quote: "We believe there remains a lack of good quality light industrial accommodation on the Island and because there would still appear to be a desire to diversify the Island's economy, the supply of suitable premises would, therefore, seem to be fundamental to this." BNP Paribas coming to the rescue of the Minister. Finally, in terms of demand, the international land agent CBRE, which has offices all over the world including Jersey, states the following: "If there is a serious objective to diversify the economy in Jersey we need new light industrial and flexible units to provide high-tech options." They also said: "There is no sign of weak demand. Where are the empty units?" These are land professionals. They go on to say: "The supply will fall if nothing new is built as existing commercial sites in town will be redeveloped for residential purposes" and which as the Minister keeps on telling us is at the core of his strategy of his plan. Point 4 that they make: "There is no evidence of anything going to be built at the airport. As demand has existed for such a long time, why has this not been done before?" Point 5: "Guernsey and the Isle of Man think differently and have stolen a march on us, and yet we are still sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing. We are rapidly being left behind and it would be another 10 years before this plan is reviewed again before we can really address this." Point 6 that they make, and I hope that Constable Refault is listening because this is powerful

The Bailiff :

The Constable of St. Peter is listening.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Constable of St. Peter. These are powerful recommendations from industry professionals: "The existing industrial sites are at full capacity and there is very little scope to increase units by 5 per cent, now permitted by the Minister for Planning and Environment. How can we promote new, high-tech, quality businesses by our only approach being to allow marginal increase in existing substandard buildings?" Point 7 that they make: "The jobs provided by these units are for lower skilled part-manual labour. It, therefore, supports a sector not wholly suited to the finance sector." Point 8: "It is dangerous to under-supply simply because of the credit crunch. The Strategic Plan promotes economic growth and diversification. This can only be achieved by providing opportunities, not by creating additional constraints."

[11:00]

If after all this qualified expert evidence Members are still not convinced and the Constable of St. Peter is still not convinced, then I am afraid he will never be. I fail to understand why the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Economic Development are not supporting this. I just simply cannot understand it, even though the Economic Development Department agreed in the last E.i.P. (Examination in Public) that this demand exists. Finally, I urge Members to think of those 270 unemployed teenagers today seeking work and those coming out of education next month; and those leaving Highlands with a good education and expectations for employment. Think of them before you push your button.

Senator A.J.H. Maclean:

Could I clarify a point please which I think is important. I unintentionally misled the House earlier on and I would just like to put the record straight, if I may. It was in relation to my comments about light industrial and warehousing space and how demand had fallen. I indicated that demand had fallen by 95 per cent, that was incorrect; I was looking at the wrong figure. Demand has fallen by 50 per cent approximately and I just want to make that absolutely clear to Members. There has been a significant drop in demand but it is not what I had said originally.

Deputy M. Tadier :

I have some questions of clarification, if I may.

The Bailiff : Well let us see.

Deputy M. Tadier :

All right, I will defer to your judgment. The first one is that in his summing up speech the Senator seemed to say that there would be an obligation on the owners to provide upgraded bus services, including a bus stop. Can the Senator explain, seeing as they do not own the bus service but the States does, how they would be implored to provide an upgrade in the bus service?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

The Deputy , as will many Members, know the planning powers have been increased and are often used to their full extent with regards to successful applicants having to put back into the community some, whether it be a percentage for art or some games in return for planning permission. This is a good initiative and it is at the suggestion or the instance probably, rather than suggestion, of the Minister for Planning as to what would happen in order to increase travel and access opportunities to the site; as well as the whole of the supplementary planning guidance that would go along with an approval for the site.

Deputy M. Tadier :

It is unfortunate the A.G. (Attorney General) is not here but I appreciate, because I do not know that if we are passing this today, we are not passing it with an obligation to provide increase in bus ..

The Bailiff :

Can we have a final point of clarification please, Deputy .

Deputy M. Tadier :

The second one is to do with the chicken farm. The Senator intimated that the chicken farm would remain but if the site is rezoned for industrial how can it be that the chicken farm, which is inherently agricultural, would be allowed to remain on an industrial zone?

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I do not think the Deputy really does need an explanation here. We are discussing the rezoning of the site, not the removal of a chicken farm.

Connétable L. Norman of St. Clement :

Can I just raise a point of order with you? It is just that during his summing up the Senator mentioned by name a senior civil servant in the Economic Development Department and quoted him as supporting his argument. I thought it was against Standing Orders, or certainly against guidelines, to use the name of a civil servant.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry I did not pick that up but, yes, it is customary to refer to civil servants by their title.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I apologise for that, it is just that the Minister has a different view to that of his officers and I ..

Yes, but the point is you should refer to the officer by his title, not by his name.

Senator J.L. Perchard:

I did not know his title, I know he is the number 2.

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I believe he was named in the Minister's response in here.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Now, the appel has been called for, I think, in relation to the amendment of Senator Perchard. I invite Members to return to their seats and the Greffier will open the voting.