States Meeting Transcript - 28/06/2011

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT TUESDAY, 28th JUNE 2011

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption ...............................................................8

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(54))

- amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(54)Amd.)................................................8

1. Senator F E Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.......................8

1. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:...............................................10
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour:.....................................................11
3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John : ........................................................11
4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter:...................................................11
5. Deputy A.K.F. Green of St. Helier:.....................................................12
6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:............................................................12
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire of St. Helier : ..................................................13
8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade : ........................................................16
9. Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:.................................................16
10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................18
11. Senator T.J. Le Main:................................................................20
12. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen:.................................................20
13. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:....................................................20
14. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier : .................................................21
15. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier:..................................................21
16. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................23 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:....................................................................26

2. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) - forty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(41)) ...........................................................................................28

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................28
2. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................28
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................28
4. Deputy G.P. Southern :..................................................................29
5. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................29
6. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................29

3. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.)..............30

1. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................31
2. Deputy J.M. Maçon:....................................................................31
3. Deputy M. Tadier :......................................................................31
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................32

5. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................33

4. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)) - paragraph 3..............................................................................34

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................34
2. Connétable A.S. Crowcroft of St. Helier:...............................................36
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa:..................................................................36
4. Deputy J.B. Fox of St. Helier:..........................................................36
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:................................................................37

5. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(5))......37

1.5.1 Deputy F.J. Hill of St. Martin : ..........................................................38

6. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(5)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(5)Amd.)..................................................38

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................39
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune of St. Brelade:......................................................39
3. Deputy A.E. Pryke of Trinity :..........................................................39
4. Senator F.E. Cohen:....................................................................39

7. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(5)) - as amended..................................................................................39

1. Senator A. Breckon: ....................................................................40
2. The Deputy of St. Martin:..............................................................41

8. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(57))................................................................................42

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):.....................43
2. Deputy A.E. Jeune :.....................................................................44
3. Connétable D.J. Murphy of Grouville :..................................................44
4. Deputy K.C. Lewis of St. Saviour:......................................................44
5. Deputy J.G. Reed of St. Ouen:..........................................................44
6. Senator T.J. Le Main: ..................................................................45
7. Deputy J.B. Fox:........................................................................45
8. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ...............................................................45
9. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade:...............................................46
10. The Connétable of St. Peter:.........................................................46
11. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:........................................................47
12. Senator A.J.H. Maclean:.............................................................47
13. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:..........................................................47
14. The Deputy of St. John:..............................................................47
15. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................48
16. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................48
17. Deputy C.H. Egré of St. Peter : ......................................................49
18. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ...............................................................49
19. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................50

9. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(28))................................................................................51

1.9.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:..............................................................52

10. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)) - paragraph 4..............................................................................52

1.10.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................52

11. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)Amd.)................................................53

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................53
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................54
3. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................54

12. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)) - paragraphs 5 and 6......................................................................55

1.12.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................56

13. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-fifth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(45)) 57

1.13.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................58

14. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fortieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(40))..58

1.14.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................59

15. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(21)) - paragraphs 1 and 2.........................................................60

1.15.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................61

16. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraphs 16 and 17......................................................61

1.16.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................61

17. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): nineteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(19)) 62

1.17.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................63

18. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): nineteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(19))

- amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(19)Amd.)...............................................63

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................63
2. Deputy R.C. Duhamel of St. Saviour:................................................64
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................64

19. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): nineteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(19))

- as amended.............................................................................64

1. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................64
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................64
3. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................65
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................65
5. The Connétable of Grouville :........................................................65
6. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................65

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED..................................................66 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT................................................................67

20. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37)) - paragraph 6................................................................67

1.20.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ...........................................................67

21. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37)) - second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37)Amd.(2))........................68

1.21.1 Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................68

22. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-seventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(37)) - paragraph 6 as amended...................................................69

1.22.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................69

23. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(21)) - paragraph 3................................................................69

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................70
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................70
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................70

24. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(21)) - paragraph 4................................................................70

1.24.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................71

25. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 18...............................................................72

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................72
2. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................72
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................73
4. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................73
5. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................73
6. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................73
7. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:............................................................74
8. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................74
9. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................74
10. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................74

26. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(51))75

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................76
2. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................77

27. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fourteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(14)) 77

1.27.1 Deputy J.B. Fox:....................................................................77

28. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fourteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(14))

- second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(14)Amd.(2))....................................78

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................78
2. Deputy A.K.F. Green:...............................................................78
3. Deputy D.J. De Sousa: ..............................................................79
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................79
5. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................79
6. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................79
7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................80
8. Deputy K.C. Lewis : .................................................................80
9. The Deputy of St. Ouen:.............................................................80
10. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: ..........................................................80
11. Senator F.E. Cohen:................................................................80

29. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fourteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(14))

- amendment ((P.48/2011 Amd.(14)Amd.)..............................................82

1. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................82

2. Senator S.C. Ferguson:..............................................................83
3. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................83
4. Deputy G.P. Southern : ..............................................................84
5. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................84
6. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ..................................................................84
7. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................84
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................84

30. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011) – fifty-second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(52))................................................................................85

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................85
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................86
3. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................86
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................86
5. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................87

31. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): forty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(41)) 87

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................88
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................88
3. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................89
4. Senator B.E. Shenton: ...............................................................89
5. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................89

32. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 20...............................................................89

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................89
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................90
3. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................90

33. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 21...............................................................90

1.33.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................91

34. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 21 - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)Amd.(2))...............91

1. Senator F.E. Cohen (The Minister for Planning and Environment):..................91
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................92
3. Senator F.E. Cohen: .................................................................92

35. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 21 - as amended................................................92

1. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................93
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................94

36. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-first amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(31)) 94

1. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................94
2. The Connétable of St. Helier:........................................................97
3. The Connétable of St. Saviour:......................................................97
4. Deputy M. Tadier :...................................................................97
5. The Deputy of St. Mary:.............................................................97
6. Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:...........................................................98

7. The Connétable of St. Brelade:......................................................98
8. Deputy S.Power:....................................................................99
9. Deputy J.M. Maçon:.................................................................99

37. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 22..............................................................101

1.37.1 The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................101

38. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twentieth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(20)) - paragraph 7............................................................................101

1.38.1 The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................101

39. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): thirty-eighth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(38)) - paragraph 23..............................................................102

1. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................102
2. The Connétable of St. Brelade:.....................................................102
3. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................102
4. The Connétable of St. Helier:......................................................103

40. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): sixteenth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(16)) 103

1. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ..........................................................103
2. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................103
3. Senator F.E. Cohen: ................................................................104
4. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ................................................................104
5. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ..........................................................104

41. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): twenty-sixth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(26))...............................................................................104

1. Senator S.C. Ferguson:.............................................................105
2. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf : ..............................................................109
3. Connétable G.F. Butcher of St. John : ..............................................110
4. Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................110

42. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): second amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(2))..110

1. The Connétable of Grouville :......................................................111
2. Senator F.E. Cohen: ................................................................112
3. Senator B.E. Shenton: ..............................................................113
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................113
5. Deputy A.E. Jeune : ................................................................113
6. The Deputy of St. John:............................................................113
7. The Deputy of St. Peter:............................................................114
8. The Deputy of St. Mary:............................................................114
9. Senator T.J. Le Main:..............................................................114
10. The Connétable of St. Ouen:......................................................115
11. Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:........................................................115
12. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ...................................................115
13. The Connétable of St. Saviour:...................................................115
14. Deputy J.B. Fox:..................................................................115
15. The Connétable of St. Peter:......................................................116
16. Deputy J.A. Hilton of St. Helier:..................................................116
17. The Connétable of Grouville :.....................................................116

43. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): eleventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)) 118

1.43.1 Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré: ..........................................................118

44. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): eleventh amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(11)Amd.)...............................................119

1.44.1 Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:...........................................................119

3. Deputy R.C. Duhamel:.............................................................123
4. Senator B.I. Le Marquand:.........................................................124
5. Deputy T.A. Vallois of St. Saviour:................................................125

ADJOURNMENT..............................................................................126

[09:01]

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

PUBLIC BUSINESS – resumption

1. Island Plan 2011: approval (P.48/2011): fifty-fourth amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(54)) - amendment (P.48/2011 Amd.(54)Amd.)

The Bailiff :

Now we return to the proposed order of events and the next matter, I think, is for the Minister for Planning and Environment to request Members to take his amendment to his 54th amendment. The States has not yet agreed that you can take that amendment to the amendment, Minister. If you would just like to explain briefly.

Senator F E Cohen:

Yes. This is a relatively simple amendment and it is designed to accommodate the helpful suggestion of Deputy Le Fondré that the Supplementary Planning Guidance that emerges from the H3 policy should be brought back to the Assembly for endorsement, which it will, before the end of this year.

The Bailiff :

Does the Assembly agree then to let the Minister take this amendment to the amendment? Very well. Now, Deputy Le Fondré, I understand that you agree that the right course then is for the Minister's 54th amendment now to be debated as amended. If it is passed then you will not proceed with yours?

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

Yes, as I understand it if the States accepts the Minister's amendment at the end of it I will simply withdraw. I would like to say 2 things at the end just to explain the logic.

The Bailiff :

So, the matter now before the Assembly is the Minister's 54th amendment, which is fairly lengthy, so we will not read it out and the Minister will propose it as amended. So, in other words, with the words: "And endorsed by the States" included at the end of the wording. So, I invite the Minister to propose his 54th amendment as amended.

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

As Members will know, Deputy Le Fondré had proposed the Supplementary Planning Guidance emerging from the negotiations to set an annual affordable housing rate should be brought back to this Assembly for endorsement. Last week I lodged an amendment seeking to accede to Deputy Le Fondré's request as I believe this is a positive proposal and it improves the democratic process. Therefore, at the outset, I wish to clarify that while the principles of the affordable housing mechanism can be debated today the actual mechanism will be brought back to this Assembly for endorsement. To further clarify, the Supplementary Planning Guidance negotiation will involve full consultation with the construction industry through the representation of the helpful president of the Association of Jersey Architects, the chairman of the Jersey Construction Council, 2 constructors, a quantity surveying representative, a representative from the banking industry specialising in project finance, a mortgage market representative, and interested politicians and specifically Treasury, Housing and Planning. I have invited Deputies Le Fondré, Le Claire and Power to participate. Work on the Supplementary Planning Guidance will begin imminently and the intention is to bring the Supplementary Planning Guidance back to the States by the end of the year. Again, any other States Member who has an interest please advise me as soon as possible and

you too can be included in the negotiating group. Reverting to the principles of the new affordable housing policy it is important to set out what we are endeavouring to deliver. All the research work of the Department, verified by the Statistics Office, has identified the approximate requirement for affordable housing over the next 10 years as an estimated 500 social rented and 500 Homebuy 2 deferred payment type houses. The latter means based on the La Providence model, delivered so successfully by Deputy Power, we will be delivering 3-bedroom homes for needy Islanders at around £250,000 to £260,000 and delivering rental homes of a similar standard at social rented housing levels. It is not a precise science and it is just a best estimate of demand that may change over the period. As described in the note I sent around to States Members we will deliver the following during the term of the Island Plan. Fourteen social rented homes already zoned, 172 social rented lifelong properties already zoned, States-owned sites are to deliver 75 social rented and 75 Homebuy 2. Parish planning sites are to deliver approximately 50 social rented and 50 Homebuy 2. Developer contributions under the affordable housing scheme are estimated to deliver approximately 140 social rented homes and 310 Homebuy 2 homes over the 10-year life of the plan. In addition to this provision other previously agreed rezonings will provide an estimated additional 70 first-time buyer homes and 185 lifelong home sale homes. In summary, during the 10-year life of the plan there will be an estimated delivery of 1,140 Category A homes and that is without the 3 sites that we deleted yesterday. As the rezoned sites have now been withdrawn it may be necessary for the Minister to come back to the States with proposals for some rezoning. This will only be after a thorough analysis of the requirement has been carried out and a revised H1 policy devised. I would now like to outline how the developer affordable housing obligations will work and provide more detail on the annual negotiation process. This policy requires developers to build affordable housing, or make affordable housing contributions, as part of all larger developments; initially 6 or over, and as the plan progresses the threshold reduces to 2. The rate of calculation of the developer affordable housing contribution will be set initially at 12.5 per cent of the gross notional development value, rising as the policy beds in to 20 per cent. There has been some significant objection to this proposal from the construction industry. However, I contend this was because the mechanism document released 2 weeks ago had not been widely read by the industry. Indeed the president of the Association of Jersey Architects was initially a critic of the policy but now he has had time to reflect and consider the policy and proposals he is an enthusiastic supporter and will be engaged in the process. The key is that the policy implementation mechanism provides for an annual negotiation with the construction industry, stakeholders and politicians in order to set the formula used for that year for the calculation of the gross notional development value. This negotiation will have at its heart 2 key principles that will require balancing: one is ensuring the delivery of affordable housing for that year, and the second is ensuring that we maintain the vitality of the construction industry. Consequently, I assure Members that we will not drive the construction industry into the sea but rather we will ensure its continuing vitality while

requiring the industry to make a social contribution to the delivery of affordable housing in Jersey. Please do not be rattled by the ill-informed scaremongering that was going on last week. This policy works well in other jurisdictions and we are introducing the developer obligations at a level much lower than other jurisdictions. Yes, it will require understanding while it beds in, and that is why we have introduced the annual negotiation. Of course, central to the new policy is the commitment of the States to deliver an element of affordable housing on States-owned land. We have therefore proposed that on States-owned land we should provide an additional 150 Homebuy 2 and social rented houses. This is our obligation and was enthusiastically supported by Members yesterday.

[9:15]

We, as the States, hold these sites for the people of Jersey as custodian and what better use could be promoted for these publicly-owned sites than to provide them for the benefit of those who are on lower incomes? We can deliver the dream of home ownership to many in this way; it is in our gift. The annual negotiation will provide a great benefit in terms of flexibility, as it will enable the policy to adapt and respond to the changes in the light of different types of housing. The policy we have brought forward is a direct response to the instructions of the House when it approved the Deputy of Grouville 's proposition in 2008. This proposition stated: "To request the Minister for Planning and Environment to bring forward a policy that requires planning applications over a certain size to provide a percentage of their build for social need, whether that be social rented, first-time buyer, retirement, sheltered housing or a mix, whichever is most appropriate of the site." Our policy thus extracts some of the value we create through the planning consent process and delivers that benefit through the provision of discounted homes to those on lower incomes in the Island and delivers the dream of home ownership to those who otherwise would have had no opportunity to own their own home, and it delivers precisely what the Deputy of Grouville intended. The strategy is squarely aimed at the protection of the countryside and the delivery of new homes in the urban areas. Thus the emphasis is not on rezoning greenfields but on delivering affordable housing contributions from all large built-up area developments. The development of the policy has been informed by leading specialist Kelvin MacDonald, who is one of the leading authorities on affordable housing in the United Kingdom. This has further been modified following extensive public consultation involving input from the development industry and significant independent scrutiny and review from the independent planning inspectors. It is supported by the independent inspectors both in their policy and in the addendum. The inspectors have recommended that the delivery on States-owned land be given a chance to succeed and, if for any reason it were to fail, that private sites be considered by the States within 2 years. In response we have incorporated, as Members will remember yesterday, the trigger mechanism in the policy to deliver this belt and braces protection. Lastly, the new policy will not come into effect until January 2012, which provides sufficient time to finalise the details of the Supplementary Planning Guidance and to bring it back to the States for endorsement. I urge Members to support this

amendment. Thank you.

The Bailiff :

Is the amended seconded? [Seconded]

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

May I make a declaration of interest? I expect to be involved in a potential planning application which would, during the life of the plan, be affected by the general H3 policy caught by the intentions of the Minister, but I regard it as a general issue covered by a large class of individuals. I will take part in the debate but nevertheless wish to register the potential interest which would occur during the life of the plan.

Senator B.I. Le Marquand: I have a similar position.

The Bailiff :

Very well. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

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

Just to make a few general comments. It is quite amazing when you consider that this policy in the last day or 2 appeared to have been fragmenting in front of our very eyes and yet the Minister has just outlined it as if everybody from the Secretary General of the United Nations to Einstein himself is behind this policy, which begs the question, why has there been this sort of sudden reversion to Supplementary Planning Guidance? It may well work, but what will the Supplementary Planning Guidance do that the policy at the moment will not do? I mean, if it has led to this incredible upsurge of opposition from the construction industry we really need to know, other than the fact they are not being socially aware chaps and chapesses, which seems to be the inference, what they are objecting to and what is being done about these objections because I do get the feeling also there is some sort of surrogate debate going on that if you do not comply with the division of housing, and we are going to moderate it because of the possibility of a legal imbroglio, we will bring in a development tax, which the naughty Deputy of St. Mary has in his armoury at the moment. I just do not understand what is going on. If this is such a fantastic policy, why are we delaying it? Because there is so much being delayed, and it has to be remembered it is being delayed to a Planning and indeed a Minister for Housing and I noticed the Minister for Housing has not appeared on the working party. It is all being delayed to someone who may well have a different policy, a different attitude, and that person is going to be faced, if this goes through, and if the heart of the policy, which is to shift a lot of the building either to States land or to money or to funds created by the sale of that land, if that does not work then the new legislature is in for an enormous number of rezonings which we very quickly, to the surprise of a lot of us, put off yesterday. So, I would like to know what is going on. I would like to know what the actual objections of the building industry are and how these will be met by Supplementary Planning Guidance because it is certainly very unusual. We know this Assembly has a reputation for micromanagement of everything but it is very unusual to bring it and have yet another battle. I want to know, what are the issues at stake? Particularly as the Minister seems to have described it as the best thing, if not better, than sliced bread.

2. Deputy J.M. Maçon of St. Saviour :

While I will be supporting the amendment I will remind Members about the key phrase: "Planning guidance." They are guidelines and indeed when we sit on Planning there is some debate over how far and how much people stick to guidelines and how that refers to the actual policy and how it differs. So, the question I want to put to the Minister is how does the Minister foresee guaranteeing what the main policy wants through the Supplementary Planning Guidance when we know there is a level of flexibility there?

3. Deputy P.J. Rondel of St. John :

When the Minister sums up, will he give us an indication of how the States-owned sites will be subsidised. Will it be by way of leasing these sites, as happened in the 1960s at Les Quennevais, with a large number of homes that were being built? They were given a 99-year lease, so the land would come back into the ownership of the Island, because the questions that have been asked of myself is if we are using States-owned land to build first-time buyer homes on, yes, we want the homes to be there for our young people at a reduced rate, but will the actual base i.e. the land, be leasehold instead of freehold? Thank you very much.

4. Connétable J.M. Refault of St. Peter :

Earlier this morning I was in deep conversation with a local developer who now works predominantly in the U.K. (United Kingdom) doing development sites and he was quite surprised at the extent of rejection from the local developers on the Minister for Planning's proposal for 20 per cent social rental because he is conditioned to providing 30 per cent in the U.K. and they have had to bite the bullet over there. He said the principal way of improving the funding mechanism to be able to deliver social housing is to look at the actual land cost and we know historically here in Jersey land cost goes up by a significant quantum multiplier as soon as it gets rezoned and there are some quite easy mechanisms. If one looks at an ordinary type of single house plot, for example, you can more or less divide it into thirds. A third is the land cost, a third is the development cost, the building cost, and a third is the profit. It is that third profit that I think developers and landowners have to start accepting there is not going to be a third in the future. There is going to be somewhat less. One can start to understand if that is the rationale why there is a lot of resistance from the local developers, if they are seeing a reduced profit in the future on the properties they are developing. One can also see that perhaps the landowners may not be getting such a high quantum, but to suggest they will not put their properties on the market because they are not getting so much I do not think is a sustainable argument because at some time they will sell because they want to

sell it and reap the reward, even if it is only 50 per cent of what they would have achieved earlier on but I think there are a lot of opportunities there. Moving on just to partially help the Deputy of St. John with a question he has raised, I am engaged at the moment with quite a number of leaseholders at Les Quennevais within my Property Holdings responsibilities, and I met with a group of them last night as it happens up at Les Quennevais. The leaseholders in Jersey are, in residential property terms, not well-liked. The local population do not like leaseholds because they recognise at the end of the lease their property will be worth nothing, absolutely nothing; it returns back to the States or to the leaseholder and they lose the property. Equally, as at Les Quennevais at the moment, they have around 55 years left on their 99-year leases, they are about to start seeing the value of their properties starting to diminish, and this is from a residential point of view. The owners of those units at Les Quennevais find this somewhat unpalatable and at the meeting last night they were very, very eager to look at a way of converting their leaseholds to flying freehold to protect their investment in their properties and hand something on to their children as well. So, while it may look from the outset as a good option of the public getting their land back, it is getting their land back at the expense of the people that are the leaseholders and I am not sure if that is something we want to do when we are talking about residential property. Commercial property is a different picture all together. It is just those 2 things. Thank you for your time.

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

I would like to pick on a couple of points and naturally I will be supporting this amendment. The Minister mentioned the dream of home ownership and good quality social rented homes. To my mind this policy, for the first time, will bring a connection between those in need and those that are making money out of the land that they have and I think, if for no other reason, that it is a good reason to be supporting this amendment. The other reason naturally, of course, is that we have people who require the homes and we need to get on and develop those homes for people who want to buy their own homes and for people who need social rented housing. Obviously alongside that comes the need to improve security of tenure because we talk about affordable homes, but for many people, apart from renting, there will be no other form of affordable home and therefore we need to ensure that people get good quality homes provided with security of tenure and that is work that I am already undertaking. So, please support this amendment.

6. Senator F. du H. Le Gresley:

I only have a very small point to make, but I feel it is quite important. The new plan proposes to deliver in the region of 500 new Homebuy 2 deferred payment-type properties, which is great, and the Minister has said that they will be for sale at about £260,000, which is within the reach perhaps of young couple in Jersey, but what worries me, and these are the Minister's words: "To deliver the dream of home ownership to young couples" but my understanding, and I stand to be corrected if I have it wrong, the current gateway for Homebuy 2 only allows couples with one or more children to qualify at the moment. So, the dream of home ownership for young couples without children is just a dream. It will not happen, and I hope that those responsible for the gateway, which is probably the Minister for Housing, would look at this because I know of some young couples who would like to start a family but where they live it is impossible to do so, but their dream of owning a home will never happen under Homebuy 2 unless we look at the gateway. I would also like to ask the Minister, and again slightly off-beat but I think it is still important to say this, the 3 sites that were withdrawn yesterday include field 1219, which we all know is an agricultural field that is still being cultivated regularly and yet the best site, and the inspectors said this all along, Samarès Nursery site, is now presumably lost for some time to come and what I would ask him is when he brings back those 3 sites, would he bring back Samarès Nursery site at the same time so we can have that debate?

[9:30]

Because my strong belief is that field 1219 will be rejected by this House, and should be rejected by this House, but the Samarès Nursery site, which has the potential for 150 units, should really be brought back at the same time for further debate by the States. I live in the Parish of St. Clement, and have done for 6 or 7 years, and I was saying to a Member this morning I discovered Samarès Nursery site by accident while I was out walking my dog. I never even knew that parcel of land existed because it is hidden behind houses and behind the housing estate. It is land that you cannot reach with a tractor .. I doubt if you could reach it with a tractor, and it is just sitting there rotting away and you have a willing seller and it seems absolutely ridiculous that we have now pulled the 3 proposed sites, and yet if we do not bring back Samarès Nursery site at the same time for further debate I think we are making a big mistake. Thank you.

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

I am pleased and will be supporting the amendments brought by the Minister and I congratulate him and also Deputy Le Fondré in recognising that this is necessary. The Minister speaks about the president of the Association of Jersey Architects being on side. He certainly is. Whether he can say the same for his Association has yet to be determined, but privately many of them express deep concern about this policy. A lot of them are concerned that if they voice that concern too publicly their businesses, along with the smaller businesses and construction, are concerned that it will bode poorly for them in the future. The president of the Association of Jersey Architects does not speak, I would say, on behalf of the Jersey Construction Council who issued a paper on 22nd June 2011, which was emailed to all Members and put in their pigeon holes where it says: "Affordable housing policy amendment does not go far enough, the Jersey Construction Council has restated its view that the affordable housing policy proposed by the Environment Department needs to be deferred until the mechanism for the provision of affordable housing has been proven to be viable and effective" and they go on in their letter, Members have it so I will not bore them, to express some deep concern about the policy, and in fact another architect who is quite well respected, Mr. Waddington, emailed the Senator and other people and he shared that information with me about his view in regards to the policy, and his view is as stated here: "Please see attached my first thoughts on the economies of affordable homes. However, it relies on the States tinkering with land values, final selling prices and so on which if even legal sounds likely to fail. Another idea might be all rezoned sites are subject to a 50 per cent capital gains tax." And then I harken back to the Hansard of 15th and 16th July 2008 when we rezoned those properties in P.75/2008 for those 11 fields in those 8 Parishes where the Minister for Treasury and Resources stood up and talked about capturing this uplift in value, and I will circulate the Hansard to Members of what he said at the time, because it is important to realise, that was in 2008 and we have not seen anything yet. All we have got on the table at the moment is the proposal by the Deputy of St. Mary to do something which most of us believe is the right thing to do, which is to levy a tax on the land and to levy a tax on the developer. However, as was put to me, if something has got a 10 per cent tax then they just will increase their price by 10 per cent to cover that. The architect goes on to talk about: "The tax is fed straight back into each development to make up the shortfall and affordability in the form of a bond just for the Homebuy initiative for first-time buyers. The tax is payable on the transaction

of the land. If a landowner wants to develop without selling then the site is independently valued. Okay, might lose a few thousand pounds at this stage but smaller scale to overall picture, and the same 50 per cent tax levied within an agreed period. 50/50 split between first-time buyers and social rented, social rented element delivered by housing trusts in the normal way", and that is an interesting concept because this idea that the construction industry is going to develop has been challenged and it was challenged as far back as September 2010 when policies H1 and owner- occupied affordable homes in the Examination in Public in 2010, that was challenged and the group that was working on that said the burdensome mechanism suggested by policy H3 was debated at length by the panellists at the Examination in Public Session 3 Affordable Housing. It was universally agreed policy H3 was unlikely to work and without some return to the principles of the Island Plan 2002 when policy H1 was some of the most suitable rural sites being rezoned for

Category A housing. So, it is basically saying, and a lot of the construction industry have been saying quietly because they do not want to be seen to be saying it, and in fact some of them have been told not to say it for fear of losing their supplies and their jobs, that this policy which was introduced initially at 40 per cent, oh just throw in a number and then knock it down, and now it has been mooted at 12 per cent, and I have been making the point what does that mean? Initially there was no actual equality across the scale. It was going to be judged by delegated powers as to what the percentage would be. So, you could have an example of the kind of dwellings we see for the Metropole site here in the newspaper, high density, doubling of floor space and they could put in a development proposal and they could say: "Well, look I know we are meant to be in the initial stages of all of this and we will get our plans in first because the initial stages mean we have to provide less, let us get the plans in now, then look, I tell you what, instead of us being able to provide social housing, which really does not go down well here at all and will devalue the rest of our properties, how about instead of giving you 12 flats or whatever it is, 12 per cent of 187 flats, instead of us giving you those flats or those dwellings why do we not just give you some cash anyway?" and that is all well and good but where is the ring-fencing for that cash? This is exactly what happened in the Sunshine Hotel. After 10 years of dilly-dallying it was sold for £3.25 million and the cash disappeared into the Treasury, not a single unit of accommodation was made with that money. It was probably spent on making sure we had enough golden parachutes to hand out, and the same was said in the conference we had which was basically, "Grab hold of me, we are jumping out of the aeroplane, of course the parachute works, we will talk about it on the way down". So, what the small businesses are saying, if they are saying it at all because a lot of them are whispering it, and it is not just small construction companies, it is real estate companies, it is architects, it is carpenters, it is plumbers, it is electricians, they are saying that they believe this policy will not work. It will not bring forward land and it favours most importantly the big businesses in Jersey, the big developers. It favours the big developers, and where are we going to put these houses that

are so desperately needed, although we have only calculated half of them on States-owned land? Setting aside from the fact that there is only so much of that to go around and one day there will be none of it left to build on, setting that aside and also setting aside the fact has anybody thought about leasing for 150 years that States-owned land, like we did with the Waterfront? What we are setting about doing is selling off. That is what we are going to do. We are going to sell off the choice sites that these developers in Jersey have been looking at for years and in return they are going to give us an equivalent of 12 per cent, maybe 14 per cent of affordable homes and likely as not if they get some of the choicest sites like Mount Bingham they will stick up buy to let share transfer luxury apartments.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

The Deputy , if he would give way, I think has misunderstood the policy. The policy does not work in the way that he is describing at all.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

The policy under this amendment is going to go out to consultation before it is implemented. So, what I am saying is the policy, as understood by the industry, and as I interpret it, will work in this way and this is why the industry is so concerned, and if the Minister is intending for it to work in a different way then I am sure the industry would be delighted to work with him towards a different route but, as they understand it, they will have to provide an element, and I am certain that was in the Minister's speech, an element of their build will either be affordable housing or there will be a commuted sum and that is what I am saying. The people that are going to build, getting back to Mount Bingham, luxury flats on Mount Bingham for buy to let people that live in Australia that want to evict local people when they cannot pay their rent, as I will demonstrate later, with children, chucking them out on the street, these properties, choice investments, probably will not have a single element of social housing on them. A States-owned asset sold at a pittance, let alone the strategic loss, the financial loss has not been calculated and even if they do which the big companies do in the U.K. they say: "Right, instead of giving a commuted sum we will set up within our development a private trust arrangement, so we will have that social element on board and we will have a trust to manage it". Well, fine, but where is the trust law giving them the protection? In the U.K. all of these things - that are not working by the way in the U.K., this law, exactly same thing, is not working in the U.K. - they have got great protection for but not as good as the rest of the E.U. (European Union) as pointed out, they have got better protection than we do. There is nothing in the trust law, which is the Whitehead Review, to provide the security of tenure, et cetera. There is nothing in the assignment rights to say that the States will have an assignment right if we have the demand and, in fact, in the current trust arrangements those assignment rights have been diminishing, year on year on year. They are not set in perpetuity. At the beginning of the build it is let us take a figure, 27 per cent assignment rights to the States. So, we have got 20 per cent of those buildings we can put the needy in, and year on year on year as they become vacated they are filled and they decrease. So, there is no set in stone assignment right and those things have not been factored through, so I do hope I can work with the Minister for Treasury and Resources and the Minister for Planning and Environment in getting all of these boxes ticked, but they are not ticked at the moment. In fact the only box that is ticked at the moment is selling off States land under the guise of providing affordable housing, which delays the affordable housing that we need, which will be by self-recognition built upon the sites that were kicked out that Senator Perchard brought and I brought. They are not our sites; those are the ones that are recognised by the Minister in the first place way back in 2002, and a part of this Island Plan inspectors' report and the addendum included, which was recommending this amendment which the Minister is now doing, the trigger mechanism set. If you are not planned and if you are not underway within 2 years then you have got to go back to Samarès, Longueville, 1248 and Le Quesne's Nurseries, and I put it to Members where do you think they are going to go in 10 years' time? Sorry, I put it to Members through the Chair, where do we think we are going to build once all these States sites have been sold? We have lost the strategic asset. We have lost the opportunity of developing anything else there that we might consider is necessary in the future and we have just put off the need to address the housing crisis we are faced with. We will come back inevitably to these sites. I am at risk at losing Members now I have spoken for so long, so I would just like to say, to just try and sum this up, this affordable housing mechanism works in the U.K. but predominantly on ground, field and Green Zone land, that is where it is working in the U.K., and it is not even working there because the amount of mortgages that have been issued to first-time buyers where we have seen that report, Generation Rent, and I have got a copy of it, the amount of people that are taking out mortgages

has decreased significantly and the value of mortgages to people has dropped something like 75 per cent and housing has not been built and the same thing will happen if we do this. The landowners will just pass it on to their next generation in perpetuity and the only way we can get it off them is through the new introduction of this notion that under the affordable housing policy we can compulsorily purchase it. Well, the last time we did a compulsory purchase it cost us £7.5 million in legal fees.

Deputy J.A.N. Le Fondré:

Can I just seek, I think, a point of clarification or correction from the last speaker? He made reference to, I think in relation to housing trusts, and obviously I am a member of a housing trust, to diminishing assignment rights. I assume he is referring to nomination rights of the States to nominate tenants to housing trusts. Can I say I do not know if he is relating it to one particular example, all I can say is in relation to our trust that is not the case.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

Can I just respond to that? I was indeed referring to one without naming it although there probably may be others. What I was suggesting is that there is no law in place to protect these things at this time. So, this notion that we are going to achieve a percentage of affordable housing is not going to be necessarily set in perpetuity.

[9:45]

8. Deputy S. Power of St. Brelade :

Just quickly on 2 points; Senator Le Gresley referred to the eligibility and gateway scheme on Homebuy Mark 1. The eligibility and gateway scheme on Homebuy Mark 2 or 22 or 26 will have to be different. It cannot discriminate against people that the Senator identified, as also for instance it may not be able to discriminate against gay couples, which is another issue. Deputy Le Hérissier referred to the group and the composition of the group, and I think the Minister for Planning and Environment has identified 3 Members here and he also has identified the Minister for Housing will be part of that group. It sounds as if it will be a large group and it will be an interesting group to chair because it is not going to be a happy place. My amendment, amendment 27, which I have withdrawn because there was no mood in the Assembly to support anything like that last week as was confirmed yesterday in the excellent speech of the Constable of St. Ouen who said: "Why throw everything out of the kitchen when parts of it need to be fixed?" One of the criticisms of amendment 27 was the fact that it would have taken more time for this Assembly to fix H3 and H1, and this is exactly what we are about to start doing now. Yesterday we did achieve a certain amount. We decided that at some time in the future some sites to be identified and proposed will be identified to construct 150 social rented houses, but these will only be done after the affordable houses have to be constructed, so they would do a return to Treasury on States-owned sites and all of that has got to be sorted out, so we have a lot of work to do and this panel has got a lot of work to do. Briefly, in the week since the rally that did not occur, that left myself and Deputy Le Claire struggling. There have been a lot of communications between the Minister for Planning and Environment and various bodies and in the build-up to this debate I spent between the date of my lodging of my amendment talking to lots and lots of people as to what their views were on this, and I make no apologies for doing that, and I have got a lot of correspondence in my papers from the Hospitality Association, from the Chamber of Commerce, from the Association of Jersey Architects and from the Construction Council, and Deputy Le Claire read a letter dated last Tuesday from the Construction Council saying that they still have reservations. So, therefore the point .. where we are now is that more work has to be done but the draft Island Plan in its present form, this particular section of it, what is happening now is exactly what I thought would happen: that more work has to be done and I am grateful to the Minister for Planning and Environment for bringing Deputy Le Fondré, myself and Deputy Le Claire into the work even though it is not going

to be easy. I think that is all I need to say right now.

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

I just hope we do not get into July syndrome and give this a thorough airing, which it is getting, which is good because in July 2008 just before the run-up to the election in July I imagine there was the same crush on debate after debate after debate and the incinerator and its associated fiasco went through. So, it is important to ask questions and I shall be asking the Minister some questions, which I hope he can answer in his summing up. The Constable of St. Peter talked about .. well, he asked the question rhetorically: "Why the opposition, why has this hit the sand, why are we going to have to set up a group to sort it all out?" and Deputy Le Hérissier asked a similar question: "Why are we delaying this?" and I do not know. I was at the E.i.P. (Examination in Public) 2, the second, well I was at both but I was at the second Examination in Public and there on the table was a document called Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance. I do not know how many Members have seen this. It is on the list on the website and it is dated August 2010. So, that is getting on for a year ago and it has in it practically everything we are talking about. In fact, it does have in it everything we are talking about and so that of course does raise the question, what happened between the White Paper with its 40 per cent contributions or 40 per cent affordable housing, then the Minister brings out the final draft at 12.5 per cent rising to 20 per cent backed up by this Planning Guidance which is draft outline S.P.G. (Supplementary Planning Guidance) August 2010 and then here we are nearly a year later faced with a last minute - really,

really last minute - amendment saying: "We are going to go back and talk with everybody again." Presumably it is again' - presumably we have been talking with them already but there is some problem, is there not? There is some problem. So, the first question to the Minister is can we have a bit of clarity? He may not be able to be entirely open but a bit of clarity on what is going on and what the areas are that have to be resolved. What is this discussion about? Because, as I say, we have had 9 months to do it already, so why are we still here? The second question is .. well, I want to refer Members to the assessment in here. Now, in this draft S.P.G. there is an economic model page sheet, which I attached with my P.90 I think, and that lists all the different costs. It is like a set of tick boxes, the value of the housing, social rented £2,300 per square metre, Jersey Homebuy £3,000 per square metre and so on, construction costs, fees, finance costs, number of parking, everything is on this and you end up with .. and buried in here at the bottom right, developer's profit, and my eyes lit up, what does the States think is an appropriate profit for developing a site and producing houses? The figure in here is 15 per cent G.D.V. (Gross Development Value), which comes from the kind of housing you build times the square metres times the type of housing. So, as I said, social rented is £2,300 per square metre, Jersey Homebuy £3,000 per square metre, first-time buyer £3,200 per square metre and market £3,750 per square metre. Now, these are indicative figures I think, but there they are in the guidance as the first suggestion, and the profit is down there as 15 per cent. I wonder if that was the problem. I wonder if that was the problem, and the Constable of St. Peter usefully said that in England they were surprised .. no, that was about a different thing, was it not? It was about the percentage of affordability. But, remember that that 15 per cent is after we have allocated, after we have done the split, so having insisted on X Homebuy and X social rented and X first-time buyer and X market, if that is possible of course, which is one of the jobs of the group presumably, then in comes the profit on the Gross Development Value of 15 per cent. So, on a £7 million project, which is not that big, the developer makes £1 million clear profit. Not bad, not bad, 15 per cent. So, I suppose the question is was that the sticking point and what does the States think? Is that an appropriate amount of profit for a developer to make and is that why they are running for the hills shouting: "Foul, foul?" Is it because they want more? I am really glad that we have an open model with all the things filled in with what the values are. We have a specified profit margin which we say we are going to hold the industry to, and each site will then negotiate on the basis of this economic viability model. It seems to me that that is the way we have to go on a small island with finite land resource and huge pressures on this whole sector; that we have to have some kind of control mechanism like that, and I am just wondering if that is not the problem, that it was specific, that it did say there will be an economic viability model for each site and it will be on this basis, and indeed the appendices in the S.P.G. spell it out, terms of agreement, planning obligations and so on. It is all quite precisely laid down. So, the second question to the Minister is will this standard viability assessment remain or is it going to go the way of the dodo? Because, I really think that we need to have a mechanism for controlling this area and saying 15 per cent; that is what we agree, that is a reasonable amount and basically it is open book. It is saying to the industry: "Fine, we will pass the sites and we want you to build houses but there is a quid pro quo that the profits are not exorbitant and they will be transparent". So, I think that I would like, as I say, the Minister to comment on whether this viability assessment will remain as the basic tool. Now, the commuted policy is spelt out in the S.P.G: "The commuted sum will be equal to the proportion of affordable homes required and will initially be set at 12.5 per cent of the Gross Development Value and will rise to 20 per cent in line with the increase in the proportion, the commuted sum becomes payable" et cetera, et cetera. So, all that is spelt out in the S.P.G. dated August 2010 and it is spelt out in the Island Plan as well, or is it? So, my third question is of the Minister, has H3 .. I am not clear now with this flurry of amendments what is still in the plan and it really, really matters because we have this legal issue around all this housing area, and we were told by the Attorney General yesterday that if something is in the plan it is less amenable to challenge than if it is somewhere else, i.e. S.P.G. or in the mind of the Minister, if it is in the plan. So, the policy H3 echoes the words I have just read out from the S.P.G. on page 255. "The application of this policy which will commence on 1st January 2012, the threshold levels for the scale of the

development will be incrementally reduced over time from 6 homes down to 2" and the second point: "The proportion of affordable housing to be provided will be increased over time. It shall initially be at a rate of 12.5 per cent rising incrementally to 20 per cent after 5 years. It shall be rounded up and so on, and if it cannot be done on the site then through a commuted payment." That is all in H3 on page 255. Now, I want to know from the Minister whether that is still there because if it is still there then presumably it will trickle through to the S.P.G., unless the group decides something different, in which case it will have to come back to the House as an amendment, the 12.5 per cent rising to 20 per cent, even though we started off with a figure of 40 per cent and Constable Refault said that 30 per cent is the U.K. provision, that if the group says 12.5 per cent rising to 20 simply will not fly then does that have to come back? So, is it still in H3 as we are approving it after all these amendments? I just want to be absolutely clear on that of course because of the legal implications of it not being in the Island Plan. That is all for now, thank you.

10. Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Very briefly, I absolutely support the heart of the H3 policy aspiration that some of the uplift in value in terms of all sites is captured towards directing for affordable homes, and it is vital that this Assembly sends a very clear message that it is determined to do this. But this policy is introduced over a period of time and the important message that must be sent is that the policy will only get more burdensome over a period of years. If there is a suspicion that the policy is brought in and subsequently is brought back then there will be an issue of developers holding back from development and not progressing development on the expectation that somehow the burden of affordable homes is going to become less, and I think that is quite an important underlying principle in the overall annual negotiation. Of course it must be appropriate to the market conditions, in that I think the Minister has been extremely wise and reflecting the genuine concern of individuals about the effect that the policy could have on what is a very depressed development sector. I met with the members of the Construction Council yesterday on C.S.R. (Comprehensive Spending Review) update reasons.

[10:00]

Most of the big organisations involved in this sector, construction architects were there and we had a good debate about this whole issue, and I was encouraged by their requirement or their indeed involvement in wanting to engage in this annual discussion, which the Minister has set out in this amendment. The final thing that I want to say is to respond to Deputy Le Claire. Deputy Le Claire has been invited by the Minister to get involved in these discussions and I hope he does and I look forward to that, but I will say one thing before responding to the issue of Sunshine Hotel. It is important that we engage co-operatively with each other, that we do not take extremes of position and that we work together positively. Some of the contributions by the Deputy over the last few days have been at the extreme end of political debate. They have been hectoring. They have not been, if I may say to the Deputy with all politeness, they have not been very constructive and it is constructive engagement that we must work together and that is how we best solve solutions. He and others have criticised me for not setting up a planning group, which I intended to do, in relation to housing matters. But it is very difficult to have a group that has the polarisation views of trying to solve a problem. The politics of Jersey and the politics of sensible Jersey is the politics of the middle ground when we are working together, not on the extremes, and I just hope that Deputy Le Claire will almost kerb some of his more, politely put, passionate interventions. I do not think he is doing himself any favours in doing what he really wants to do, which is delivering home ownership to people, which is something there is broad consensus in this Assembly of what to do. I will respond with this issue on Sunshine Hotel. I have signed a Ministerial Decision in the last 48 hours to use the receipt of Sunshine Hotel for the refurbishment of Pomme d'Or Farm. That is something that the Minister is not involved in because it is in his constituency, but we have made the decision,

because of the receipt of Sunshine Hotel, after consultation with the Assistant Minister for Housing and other interested parties - I think I have also discussed it with the Council of Ministers - that the valuable receipt from Sunshine Hotel should go, rightly, to the refurbishment of the stock at Pomme d'Or Farm and that means that there is going to be a residual underspend in terms of the balance on the fiscal stimulus money, which was my original proposal to deal with Pomme d'Or Farm. That, itself, is going to be possible .. subject to consultation with the F.P.P. (Fiscal Policy Panel) and wider consultation, I envisage that maybe that is going to be the solution to deal with Phillips Street shaft, which, in turn, is a prerequisite needing an infrastructure plan in order to then deliver social housing on Ann Street. So Treasury is working co-operatively and trying to find solutions, and I wanted to respond to the issue of Sunshine Hotel because the valuable receipt from a social housing site is now going into social housing and I hope Members agree that that is a wise decision.

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if I can ask the Minister for a point of clarification?

The Bailiff :

Not if it is about Sunshine Hotel. I appreciate that the Minister was responding to a point but it seems way off the ..

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, Sir, no; it is about the construction industry representatives he met because, again, I am wondering about what is going on there. Could he tell us how they saw the light when he spoke to them? I get the impression he came away much happier from that meeting than when he entered it. What transpired and what did they know at the end that they did not know at the beginning?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

I was happy before the meeting and I was happy after the meeting, as I normally am trying to be optimistic. The fact is, I think genuinely there is a better understanding. The Minister has very carefully responded and explained how H3 will work, and I think that people jump to conclusions, inappropriate conclusions, about the impact of H3 and they also thought that this was somehow going to be imposed upon them at draconian levels, which were going to take out all of the land value and that we were not going to achieve anything at all. Engagement, working together, is how we solve problems generally. I got a message of an enthusiastic construction industry that was willing to engage. At the end of the day political decisions are required and tough decisions are required, but when you give the opportunity of people to engage they positively respond. That is exactly what the Minister has done and he is quite right to do so.

The Deputy of St. Mary :

May I ask a further point of clarification on a different tack? I think I heard the Minister say that the construction industry was having a hard time; it is always in the doldrums, always in difficulty or some similar phrase. Can the Minister confirm that that is what he said, that the construction industry is having a hard time? If he did say that, can he square that with the figures that show that employment in the construction sector is at its highest for the last 15 years and has been over the last 2 years?

Senator P.F.C. Ozouf :

Off the point, but the point has been raised. It is the future order book of the construction industry that is causing the construction industry problems. This Assembly, on my proposition for fiscal stimulus, avoided serious problems in the construction industry happening in the last 2 years and the construction industry has been greatly assisted by fiscal stimulus. The difficulty is that the future order book in the next couple of years is looking more difficult than perhaps one would want to see because of the drying up of credit. That is commanding the attention of myself and the Minister for Housing and the discussions with S.o.J.D.C. (States of Jersey Development Company) in the capital programme, about how we can make sure that the construction industry continues at those buoyant levels of employment that we have seen as a result of this Assembly's action.

11. Senator T.J. Le Main:

I think I am a lot happier now than I was for the last few days. I am now more comforted than ever with the very firm promises made by the Minister that many of us will now be engaged or can be engaged with him in trying to promote and get the sites going on States-owned sites. But also he has now promised, and I think he has given me more comfort, that within 2 years or so - I am not sure we can hold the Minister to exactly 2 years - if the sites do not come online and no progress is made on some of these States-owned sites, at least the private sites that we have been discussing and which the planning inspectors have identified will certainly come back to this Assembly. So I am more than comforted with that. I am going to do all I can to work with the Minister and with other Members in trying to achieve that because there is a real need for homes for people; not only affordable but rental as well. I am going to work with the Minister with that. I would like to say, light-heartedly, that the Minister and I have got a private bet of £100 - the loser pays to charity by the way - that South Hill will be built on or commenced in 2 years' time and I believe that possibly I will win that bet anyway. So the challenge is out to the Minister and I hope that all Members will now, with the assurances the Minister has given us, work together to try to achieve really positive moves in providing homes for ordinary people and particularly the elderly.

12. Connétable K.P. Vibert of St. Ouen :

I, too, am going to support the Minister in this, but I have to say that I think we need to accept that there is a word of warning to be had with any sort of decision like this. I think that Deputy Le Hérissier hit the nail on the head, probably his own thumbnail, because he said that this Assembly is tempted to micromanage and I think that the more we try and micromanage the building industry, the worse it is going to become for us. We are not going to achieve what we want to achieve. Yes, we can try, but we have not really succeeded in the past. I remember when we brought in the 45/55 split in order to achieve social housing. The consequence of that was that first-time buyer houses went up by £100,000. So I think that if we are going to try and manage the market we need to do so with the industry on our side, not try and bring in rules that we then expect the industry to adhere to. So, yes, we need to move on with this policy. We need to support the Minister, but we need to be aware of the possible consequences.

13. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

Just a couple of comments. First of all, I think I might have to declare an interest, if I have understood things correctly, because some of the H3 sites may have already been earmarked for Clos de Sables and Les Quennevais Park and I will be lodging a petition shortly to try and protect those sites until certainly the Lesquende project has been brought forward. I think it is ridiculous, in the St. Brelade/Le Quennevais context, to be looking for these small sites in an already very built-up area while there is a project, which has been ongoing and delayed for so many years, which would satisfy a much larger appetite for the needed homes in the Parish. So just to get that out of the way. I was pleased to hear Senator Cohen's invite for all interested Members to join the group, to contribute. I think that is the way forward and, for all of our slight disagreements, I know that Senator Cohen does try to be as inclusive as possible, certainly in his invites. That is why I was slightly disturbed to hear Senator Ozouf 's words, which seemed to be directed at Deputy Le Claire, saying that basically only moderates and those in the middle ground should really be considered. That is what Senator Ozouf was saying. They were Senator Ozouf 's words, exactly; that only those in the middle ground and moderates should be welcomed into the middle ground to make decisions.

Senator F.E. Cohen:

If the Deputy would give way; I have already invited Deputy Le Claire to participate in the groups and he has already accepted. I am looking forward to his participation.

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire: I think, if I may ..

Deputy M. Tadier :

No, I am not giving way, Sir. I never gave way to the Senator or to the Deputy and I was not referring to Senator Cohen's invite. Clearly that is already the case. Senator Ozouf made a statement that only those with middling views should be allowed to contribute and that those on the extremes in politics do not get things done. Now, this is a complete nonsense of a statement to make because we know that sometimes we need radical solutions to what is a very difficult problem in Jersey and the moderate middle way has not been able to solve these big issues in Jersey to do with housing. So what I would say to the Senator, who I hope is listening, is that we need a completely inclusive group. Senator Cohen is absolutely right to invite those with an interest in the subject because we all have, I hope, the same goal, which is to provide housing - whether that is to be purchased or to be rented - which is accessible to all Islanders and which is not limited to those who can afford it at the expense of those who cannot. So I will be monitoring the situation very closely and I will certainly be making my contribution to Senator Cohen or the subsequent Minister for Planning and the Environment.

14. Deputy D.J. De Sousa of St. Helier :

I am surprised it was so quick. I just wonder if the Minister could clarify; the group that he is setting up to look into H1, will it cover the H3 as well? [Aside] But there will be another group for that. Will that group be involved in the terms being reviewed yearly?

Deputy P.V.F. Le Claire:

May I, just for a very brief second, because my name has been mentioned and my behaviour, I would like to say that, while I do apologise for the shouting, I do not apologise for my emotions.

The Bailiff :

I am sorry; I had not seen your light. Was it on before I called upon the Minister?

15. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier :

Just before Deputy Le Claire. I certainly would not want to miss out on this major debate that is going to live with us, unfortunately I believe, like a bad smell for the next 10 years, nor to miss the opportunity to register my reservations about this plan. They are very fundamental.

[10:15]

We appear to have discussed the plan overall without really noticing what it is trying to achieve in this approach that we have of talking about one amendment after another, a little bit here and a little bit there. We appear to have come, finally, to look at some numbers and nobody has mentioned those numbers for a long time, since about Tuesday last week. They got a brief mention. Are the targets right? Is what is being proposed to be delivered overall going to meet the need? The answer is, unfortunately, I think, the targets are wrong. So whether or not we have to withdraw chunks of policy on H1, whether or not we have the details of H3 and how things are going to be delivered .. and we do not. So whether we are going to achieve those targets really pales into insignificance alongside the central question: are the targets right? I do not know who it was who said it last Tuesday, but the targets are inadequate. I believe it was Deputy Le Claire. He is holding his hand up anyway. Previous estimates have been significantly higher on the demand required. The number of houses being delivered is insufficient in the light of targets to increase

migration by 150 heads of household, which already are failing to be met because we are riding straight through them and every year and every period that you examine over the last decade shows exactly the same. Until we get hold of our population policy we are chasing our tails trying to build enough houses to accommodate that rising population, yet very little attention appears to have been paid to that. So the targets are inadequate in the first place. The second thing that needs to be made, and it needs to be made time and time and time again, we keep using this phrase: "affordable housing, affordable housing, affordable housing." The fact is that Kelvin MacDonald himself, in his major report, which came last year or the year before to the Minister for Planning and Environment, said: "There is no such thing as affordable housing in Jersey." He starts with a 3- bedroom house, looks at that and says: "Hang on, that is a 17 to 19 times multiplier of the average wage. That is not affordable. Whether the mortgage companies are working or not, that does not make any sense whatsoever." He then went through, came down and down, 2-bedroom flat, and you were down to around 7 to 8 times the multiplier for the average wage saying: "Even getting your foot on the ladder for the 2-bedroom flat so you can start a family, not affordable. Way beyond the 5 times salary and the 7 times salary that the worst of the housing boom people were lending." Even a 2-bedroom flat, not affordable to the average wage earner in Jersey. There is no such thing as affordable housing in Jersey. Then we have got this Homebuy scheme, this deferred payment scheme, which we have been running for the past 2 years. Is it sustainable? Is that sort of subsidy to the market sustainable? I do not believe it is. If anybody can come along and show me the argument that says: "That is sustainable over the long-term and can be made to work and is not just leaching money permanently into the buyers' market," if they can prove it then I look forward to attending the seminar. Probably the Minister for Treasury and Resources, he likes his seminars, so he can probably prove that it is viable. But I simply do not believe it. Then we have this chaos that says: "Despite all of this, we put Category A housing, first-time buyer housing, affordable homes housing, straight in the pot that says affordable'", even though it is not. That confusion, we saw yesterday, says: "Hang on; because you are not clear about your definitions of affordable housing, Category A housing, you have opened yourself up to the potential, the possibility, of a challenge from a developer." This is the policy we are pushing through: "Oh, we can sort that out later." The Planning Guidance document; again: "We can sort that out later. Pass this now. It has been 4 years in the working up and we have not completed it. So please, Chamber, pass this because we have done our best. It is the best we can produce." Is it really? Now, as I attended that meeting of the building industry they made a very strong argument that what was being asked could not be delivered and that it was going to probably decimate, worse than decimate, not one in 10

companies but many companies, many local companies. It was going to freeze up the market. People would not go forward with their developments in the light of what was being asked of them and there was a serious danger that small local companies with 2 to 6 house builders would find work drying up and would go to the wall and the long-term risk is that we end up only with the big- time developers, the big boys, and just a few of those. But we have to look at those and say: "The big boys are owned by whom?" Small builders are local builders. The big boys often are not. What have we done to our taxation system if we become dependent on big developers, big foreign- owned developers? Why, they are not financial companies. They are building companies. They are development companies. We are not going to get any tax out of them; so we pull out another leg of our tax-raising mechanism and ruin more ..

The Bailiff :

Deputy , this is a wide-ranging speech.

Deputy G.P. Southern : It is indeed, Sir.

The Bailiff :

It is very difficult at the moment to see the relevance to this particular amendment, which is saying that the Minister will in fact come forward later with his Supplementary Planning Guidance on H3 which we will put to the States. Now, what is ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

That is part of the defects that have been presented to us overall on this particular policy, which suggests that we will not be able to deliver and that is my concern, including the fact that the S.P.G. is not there. I am talking about the building industry. Until last week, until the Minister told us that the objections have suddenly evaporated and they are now wonderfully supportive, the building industry was saying: "Hang on; this policy will not deliver." One of the concerns was the S.P.G. and its absence.

The Bailiff :

The issue before the Assembly is whether to vote for this amendment and at the moment I am struggling to see ..

Deputy G.P. Southern :

I am urging people to vote against it, Sir, and I would be grateful if I did not have a chorus from the Minister while I am still on my feet. I am reminded very strongly of the words of the Constable of St. Ouen, who is probably the longest-serving Member of this House at the moment - there may be others; Senator Le Main behind him is even longer - who on many occasions has had very sensible words to say and contributions to debates. His words were: "I wish we had sought the co-operation of the building industry and talked to them first before arriving at this position of imposing conditions on the building industry, albeit that we are to debate the S.P.G. with them after we have voted this policy through." It seems to me he is right in saying this is the wrong way round. If we were spending 4 years devising this policy we should have been in serious negotiations and talks with them and be bringing forward something that we can guarantee, that we are clear, that the building industry was wholeheartedly supportive of and it is not. Just to return back to the worries about this particular aspect of this policy. Having listened to the building industry I was aware that obviously they have got an interest, a self-interest, and that they are obviously, effectively, a lobby group. My reservations come back to this numbers game at the very beginning. While they were saying: "12.5 per cent; hang on, will it not be 20 per cent soon? Then, when will it be 40 per cent" was one of the statements made and as soon as he said: "40 per cent", I thought: "Hang on" back to the numbers game: "What are we trying to achieve? Can we achieve it? What happened to the 45/55 split?" The 45/55 split is even more extreme, which apparently has been working. Where has it gone? The question is: can we meet the numbers that are proposed with the H3 policy and with the reservations about H1s and our own sites? I think the answer is no and I think the voting against this Plan has to start here with this particular amendment. I will be voting against it. I urge Members to vote against it because I do not believe that the Minister has shown that he can make it work.