States Meeting Transcript - 21st March 2022

STATES OF JERSEY OFFICIAL REPORT MONDAY, 21st MARCH 2022

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption .................................................................. 4

1. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) – eighteenth amendment: Field L127 (P.36/2021 Amd.(18)) ........................................................................ 4

1.1 Senator S.W. Pallet: ........................................................................ 4

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade : .......................................................... 6
2. Connétable M.K. Jackson of St. Brelade : .................................................. 7
3. Connétable D.W. Mezbourian of St. Lawrence : ........................................... 7
4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade : ........................................................ 9
5. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 11
6. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence : ..................................................... 11
7. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 12

2. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - fiftieth amendment: Field MY493, St. Mary (P.36/2021 Amd.(50)) ............................................................... 14

2.1 Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary : ..................................................... 15

1. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary : .......................................................... 15
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 16
3. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 17

3. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) – sixty-seventh amendment: Use of fields G508, G508A, G526, G526A G521A, Grouville (P. 36/2021 Amd.(67)) ................ 18

3.1 Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier : ................................................... 18

1. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 20
2. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville : ................................................ 20
3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville : ......................................................... 23
4. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 23
   5. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier : ................................................... 26
   6. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 26
   7. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 26
   8. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 27
   9. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:................................................................. 27

4. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - sixty-eighth amendment: Use of Field T1404, Trinity (P.36/2021 Amd.(68)) ..................................................... 31

4.1 Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 31

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John : ......................................................... 33
2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier : ......................................................... 34
3. Senator S.W. Pallett: ...................................................................... 34

5. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - sixty-ninth amendment: Use of Fields P655 and P656, St. Peter (P.36/2021 Amd.(69)) .......................................... 35

5.1 Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter : ........................................................ 35

1. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 38
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 39

LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT PROPOSED ................................................... 40 LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT .................................................................. 40

3. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 40
4. Deputy R.E. Huelin of St. Peter : .......................................................... 40
5. Deputy S.M. Ahier : ....................................................................... 41
6. Connétable R.A. Buchanan of St. Ouen : ................................................. 41
7. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 42
8. Deputy M.R. Higgins: .................................................................... 43
9. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 43
10. The Connétable of St. Peter : .......................................................... 43

6. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) – eightieth amendment: Use of Field P818, St. Peter (P.36/2021 Amd. (80)) ........................................................... 45

6.1 The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 45

1. The Connétable of St. Peter : .............................................................. 46
2. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 47
3. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 48
4. The Connétable of St. Brelade : ........................................................... 48
5. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 49
6. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 49
7. The Connétable of St. Lawrence : ........................................................ 49
8. Deputy G.P. Southern of St. Helier : ...................................................... 50
9. The Deputy of St. Peter : .................................................................. 50 Deputy J.H. Young: ............................................................................. 52

Senator S.Y. Mézec : ............................................................................ 53

7. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - twenty-fifth amendment: Future Affordable Housing Provision - as amended (P.36/2021 Amd.(25)Amd.) .............. 55

7.1 Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 56

1. Deputy J.H. Young: ...................................................................... 57
2. Deputy G.P. Southern : .................................................................... 59
3. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 60

8. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - forty-first amendment: States' Owned Land (P.36/2021 Amd.(41)) ................................................................ 61

1. Senator S.Y. Mézec : ...................................................................... 61

2. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - forty-first amendment (P.36/2021 Amd.(41)) - amendment (P.36/2021 Amd.(41)Amd.) .................................... 63

1. Deputy J.H. Young (The Minister for the Environment): ................................ 64 Deputy M. Tadier : .............................................................................. 66 Mr. M.H. Temple Q.C., H.M. Attorney General: .............................................. 68 The Deputy of St. Mary : ........................................................................ 68 Deputy G.P. Southern : .......................................................................... 69
2. Deputy R.J. Ward : ........................................................................ 69

3. Deputy M. Tadier :........................................................................ 71
4. The Connétable of St. Mary :.............................................................. 72
5. Deputy K.F. Morel : ....................................................................... 72
6. The Connétable of St. John : .............................................................. 74
7. Senator K.L. Moore : ...................................................................... 74
8. The Deputy of St. Mary : .................................................................. 75
9. Deputy R. Labey of St. Helier : ........................................................... 76

ADJOURNMENT .................................................................................. 77

The Roll was called and the Dean led the Assembly in Prayer. Deputy R.J. Ward of St. Helier :

May I raise the défaut on Deputy Southern ?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do Members agree the défaut be raised on Deputy Southern ? The défaut is raised.

PUBLIC BUSINESS - resumption

1. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) – eighteenth amendment: Field L127 (P.36/2021 Amd.(18))

The Deputy Bailiff :

We now return to the debate. Next is the 18th amendment lodged by Senator Pallett and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "the draft Island Plan 2022-25" insert the words "except that – (a) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes in Policy H5 – Provision of affordable homes – "6. Field L127 St. Lawrence (1.25 hectares/6.95 vergées) " with the remaining items on the list renumbered accordingly; (b) the draft Island Plan 2022-25 should be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of paragraph (a); and (c) the Draft Bridging Island Plan Proposals Map Part A – Planning Zones should be amended to reflect the adoption of paragraph (a)."

1.1  Senator S.W. Pallet:

We have already had some very strong feelings expressed around the loss of good agricultural fields, and I have no doubt that the same feelings will be expressed maybe during this debate. But I felt it important to carry on with this amendment. I had thought over the weekend about withdrawing it because there have been some strong feelings expressed through various emails that have been sent over the weekend. But I felt it right to carry on with the debate. It is going to be difficult and I think there needs to be some balance around what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. I think some Members may find that this particular amendment is not acceptable for them because of the loss of agricultural land. But in saying that, I just wanted to express why I have brought this amendment forward. I met with the owner of the field and their agent some time ago. They expressed a desire, which is in the proposition itself, to want to give something back to the Parish. There is a long association between the landowners and the Parish. They very much wanted to be able to provide some affordable homes for young people within the Parish and felt that field 127 was an opportunity to do that. They are aware of the difficulties. This is not a particularly easy site in terms of its current use but nevertheless they expressed to me that they wanted the debate to go ahead and understand why States Members may or may not want to take this field forward. What I did do about a month ago is .. not that I do not know the area, I go to Glencoe quite often and I do know the area pretty well. But I thought I would take the opportunity to walk the area just to understand the environment, how close it is to other neighbouring properties and just get a feel for the site. I am glad I did that because it certainly gave me a feeling that it is not as remote, although I find that word quite strange in Jersey - "remote" - because I do not think anything is remote from anything. It is a very small island but nevertheless "remote" has been used by some in terms of being on the edge of a built-up area. I just wanted to have a look at the site. There are homes, as you can see from the pictures that are provided within the proposition. There are homes nearby opposite the entrance to La Fraide Rue and a property to the rear of this field, Glencoe is to one side, and then when you think about the

proximity of Carrefour Selous, it is 180 metres away, and there are other properties that border the road on both sides as you go back towards Carrefour Selous. It is not particularly remote although it is on the edge of the built-up area, which the owners accept. One of the comments made by the Minister is that it is not served particularly well by the road structure and connected to other parts of the Parish by the road structure. Clearly, there is a main road, La Grande Route de St. Laurent, that runs from the site down towards Carrefour Selous, down towards the village centre, which is based around the Parish Hall and the shops. That is a busy road and that is accepted that it is a busy road, and it is certainly not a road that you would want to walk on by choice; certainly not the section from La Fraide Rue down to Carrefour Selous. It is narrow. But having walked the area, there are a series of green lanes that run off the back of La Fraide Rue, and I did write the names of them down, but there are various roads that run off into green lanes, that run down towards Carrefour Selous, La Rue de la Hauteur and then you have got another road that runs off to Carrefour Selous and then Le Mont au Meunier, which runs down towards the village centre. It does not completely join up with it and again that is accepted, but it is not in terms of access to other parts of the Parish. There are some safe walking routes and cycling routes, that could be used for this particular site. One of the things I would just like to highlight is the fact that this is not a speculative development. That is not what it was set out to be. It very much wants to provide affordable homes for young people. In discussion with the agent and the owners, they provided various information as to what that might mean in terms of price. What they are looking to provide here is 24 what I would consider to be really affordable homes, with another 7 open market. Comments have already been made, I think, in some emails around why does it have to include 7 open market homes. That makes the site sustainable and viable. It does not mean that the whole of the site could not be affordable but it would be less affordable if the whole site was 31 affordable homes.

[9:45]

The price that is being given to me, because I know it was mentioned last week, on some of these sites is what is affordable. Well, the prices that I was given in discussion with the agent was, and this is about 6 months ago, so there are obviously going to be price increases due for various reasons, but at that time they were looking at the figure of £385,000. Now I think that is truly affordable. It may have gone up a little bit because of price increases and material increases but nevertheless anything around £400,000, I think, for a 3-bed home in Jersey has got to be seen as affordable when you consider that a 3-bed home on open market in Jersey at the moment is probably in the £750,000 to £800,000 bracket, which clearly is not affordable to young couples or very few young couples. The 7 open market do allow those homes to be provided at that level of price but, again, there are always opportunities to negotiate on that and maybe find another way of providing these homes or providing more affordable homes on that particular site. I just wanted to remind Members that within the actual draft Island Plan itself, it does, and I will read the section when it talks about future affordable housing provision. It does say: "This will need to include the provision of affordable homes as a proportion of open market housing development. This is a mechanism that is customarily practised elsewhere." So having open market homes as part of an affordable homes package is a mechanism that is used elsewhere and is not unusual in terms of other sites. I suppose the word that I really want to use here, and it gets back to the reason for the owners wanting to bring this forward, is it is not a speculative development. It does look to provide homes at an affordable price. But I am now going to dwell on, I suppose, what is going to be the negative of this particular site, and it would be wrong if I did not bring that up and the fact that it is currently in agricultural use and it is rated by Jersey Farmers' Union as being a 2 site and a last resort, as it is good for agriculture. That is accepted by the owners. It is in use. They lease it out. They have a current farmer. I think it is a Jersey potato company that use it, and they do use it on a regular basis. So that is accepted. In terms of the Minister's comments, it has been quite clear that it is seen as an agricultural site but I think some of the comments made within the Minister's comments I do not think necessarily are as strong as they make out. I think there is an opportunity to integrate this particular site into local areas. Main drains

is also another issue that has been brought up with this site and the fact that there is not capacity to go or connect 24 hours a day into the main drains. But there is an alternative to that, as is mentioned in the proposition, with a holding tank and being able to pump out at times where there is less strain on the drainage infrastructure. That is being used elsewhere. It was used at the Belvedere site, Dandara site at Five Oaks, and it works there so there is no reason it would not work here. Just in regards to summing up, because I think both I and the owners are keen to hear Members' views. I am sure they are going to be strong, especially on the potential loss of the agricultural field, but just to sum up is that we believe it is a potential viable site for affordable homes. There is a difficult balance to strike, as there always is with a site that is on the real periphery of an urban area or built- up area. There have been comments made about the loss of this field and what it might mean in terms of ribbon development. There is certainly ribbon development along La Grande Route de St. Laurent, and I can understand why the Deputies and the Constable may feel that this is a step too far. But I did not bring this proposition to upset them. I certainly did not bring this amendment to upset nearby property owners. It was brought with the good intentions of a local family in trying to provide affordable homes at a reasonable price, and there is no doubt that we are going to be short of sites for affordable homes. Members have got to, I think, judge whether this is an acceptable site for affordable housing or whether they believe that it just maybe oversteps the mark. I hope we can have a structured debate. I think it is one of these sites which might bring out some of the issues around the risks of losing too many agricultural fields. Comments have been made also around the capacity or the loss of capacity within the agricultural industry of losing a field of this site. I am told that there is plenty of capacity in terms of agricultural fields and the number of fields that are needed for growing at the current time but that is for, I think, Members to weigh up when they speak and when they make a decision on this field. I am going to leave it there. As I said, I think the owners and I would like to just hear Members' views. We know it is a difficult field. We know it is going to be one that Members will have to weigh up whether, like I say, it is a step too far, but I think it is right that we do debate it. I look forward to hearing what Members have got to say; good or bad.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]  

1. Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade :

I hope my initial thought that I am now going to verbalise when I heard Senator Pallett say they want to give something back to the Parish, I hope it is not too glib; it is not intended to be. But I feel like saying if their prime motivation is to give something back to the Parish and the Island then there is nothing stopping them giving the field, donating it, gifting it, bequeathing it, whatever you want to call it - it would not be a bequest of course - to the Parish. Because those kind of things are done all the time and then it can be up to the community to decide what they want to do with it in the future. It would be then in the Parish ownership so that it can either be kept for community use, for green use, for open space, for natural open space, for farming, as long as it is required. I am always slightly uneasy, and I know that the Senator's intentions will be entirely honourable because I know that genuinely he wants to see more affordable housing and he is proactively trying to do something in that regard, so I am sympathetic to his motivation. But, as I have said in many other speeches, I think we have so many fundamental issues here about tackling the housing crisis and rezoning green fields when we have other fundamental underlying problems that need to be addressed first is not the way to do it. I think that is why we have the planning process. I am always slightly uneasy when any Member comes to the Assembly effectively saying: "I have spoken to someone who is not a speculator" but clearly there is some speculation going on here otherwise it would be gifted. I am not, by the way, naive in saying that we can expect everyone to just donate their land, but when they tell us things like: "We want to help the Parish; we want to give something back" then lots of people give stuff back without making a big song and dance about it. That is simply the point I wanted to make. There is another point that has come to my mind, because again it might be slight naivety, but

I did not realise the full extent of the farming community. I knew that it has always been really important to the Island, and I guess that there have been big shifts from how it used to work in the past. I suppose it is a little bit like a shopkeeper who lived above their own shop, went down in the morning, they might have baked their own bread, and then opened up in the morning, seen the local people during the daytime and gone back upstairs in the evening to sleep. That was certainly the case with Louisa Gould, who we all know, the heroine from the Occupation, who ran a shop in St. Ouen and who provided a community service, not just for the shoppers but also an important linchpin of the Resistance. I say that as an aside. We are no longer, it would appear, in the situation where the person who owns the field is necessarily farming the field. I do not think that was always the case anyway; we have always known about tenant farmers and farmworkers coming over and so on, but it has really come home to me in the last few days and last week when we were discussing rezoning of green fields, finding out that you have got good, agricultural land which is in use, where you have got tenant farmers, whether it is dairy or vegetable farmers, who could find themselves without that field that they have tended for a very long time and it struck me that quite rightly we often talk about security of tenure for people who rent in this Island in terms of their homes, and that they do not have that security of tenure, but we might need to get to the point now where we need to talk about bringing in security of tenure for our farmers, especially the ones who do not own the fields, because they are the custodians, I believe, of the countryside. When we risk rezoning these fields in an ad hoc way by saying: "I think this field could be rezoned because they are up for it and it is for affordable homes" and it does not have the backing of the planning process, which has been lengthy, and I have yet to hear from the representatives of St. Lawrence but certainly what I have seen from the vast amount of representation that we have all received on these fields is that there is clearly strong feeling, and it is not strong feeling simply of a populist or what one might call a N.I.M.B.Y. (not in my back yard) nature, there are genuinely good reasons that have been well-articulated in these emails, that I think all of us have a responsibility to seriously consider. I would like to say thank you to all of those people who have emailed us. I had to put an out-of-office on saying that I have received emails but cannot necessarily respond to them. I will prioritise constituents, but that does not mean that I do not read the emails and it does not mean that I do not give them the consideration as if these places were in my constituency as well. As I said earlier on, I need to apply the same principles that I would if I was considering these kinds of developments in my own constituency, and I have always stood on the basis that I will oppose inappropriate development and, as far as I can see with this field, it is not one that we, as an Island community, can afford to lose at this point.

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

Like the previous speaker, I am grateful for those living around the area who have communicated with us in the past few days and I know some of them well, and understand their objections from an agricultural point of view, but I would like to make the point with regard to the infrastructure, and the Minister may pick it up later in his speech. Now, it seems clear to me that the department are not supportive of this and, in particular, from the drainage point of view there would seem to be an obligation to put a pump and a tank onsite. I suppose the question in my mind that arises is how is that financed in future years? It probably would be part of the development to install it initially, but would the inhabitants of the site, the property holders on the site, end up with a shackle around their necks for evermore to maintain this equipment and plant, which might colour the costs in the first place? So, apart from the agricultural side, I do feel it is in completely the wrong position. The unfair imposition on the infrastructure seems to me to make the whole thing unsupportable.

[10:00]

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

I am just reading an email that has been sent to me from a farmer who used to farm this field, and if I may just begin by selecting the sentence that jumps out at me: "L127 is a very good field with very good quality soil, flat and with very few short turns. A very easy field to work. To build on such a

good field would be a very sad day for the location and Parish, as there are far more suitable fields to build on without the impact on the farming industry", and if I may start there, we heard from Senator Pallett that he had given thought over the weekend to whether or not to withdraw his amendment, but he decided it was important to carry on and have the discussion and let Members make up their own minds. I cannot disagree with that, because of course I could have put in an amendment myself to propose the withdrawal from the debate or, I should say, to propose the withdrawal of the field as other Members have done, but I do think it is important that the decision is made through due process and over my years as Constable I have had many people knock on the office door to come and see me and ask me whether or not I would support them in their attempt to have fields within the Parish rezoned and my view and my response has always been that there is a process. They should follow due process. It is certainly not my position as Constable to make a decision unilaterally on whether a field is appropriate for housing or whether it should remain in agricultural use, because I am not qualified to say that, so I always tell them: "Go through the planning process because that is your right. You are entitled to do that" and clearly Senator Pallett is entitled to bring this for our deliberation today. My view is that the planning process is appropriate because there are policies in place that we take into account, so a field that may be capable of being built on, the normal application would be put into the Planning Department, probably for preapplication advice, it would progress and it would very likely be put in front of the Planning Committee for determination and the Planning Committee of course is constrained by the policies within the Island Plan, and we have heard the Constable for St. Brelade mention the problem with drainage, and that is one aspect that has been raised by the Minister in his comments. The drainage is not appropriate, notwithstanding that Senator Pallett has referred of course to the Belvedere site, which was able to pump I believe through the night, so basically the drains would not be able to take the continual pumping 24/7. So even if this was to be approved by the Assembly, and I would urge them to vote against Senator Pallett's amendment, the problem of drainage and everything else associated with an application would be faced and decided upon by the Planning Committee and, of course, there is no guarantee that if an application to build 30 homes on this site was to be put in front of the committee that permission would be given, because clearly this is a prime agricultural site and that is what the Senator himself has told us. He very helpfully listed for us the negatives that are associated with this site and he started by telling us that it is in agricultural use, it is an agricultural site. I spoke a few days ago and made my stance clear, I believe, on whether or not I will be supporting the rezoning of prime agricultural sites, and clearly I have not done so throughout the previous days of debate. When I was elected a lifetime ago, it seems to me, one of my policies was that I would not support development within the green zone, and I have maintained that throughout my time serving the Parish. It is difficult, of course. It is not only that I have not supported development within my Parish, but across Island. The development is not really on the edge of the built-up area, as the Senator would have us believe. The small community of Carrefour Selous is some distance away, but even Carrefour Selous as a site itself is not overdeveloped. It is pretty small compared to other built-up areas throughout the Island, and I think in his amendment the Senator also referenced the site at St. John , saying it would support current local shops and services in St. John and Millbrook. That is true, of course, but it would probably necessitate the householders using their car to get there, if they are going to do a shop, and of course we are trying to deter people from using their motor vehicles for .. I will not say unnecessary journeys, but we are trying to stop people using their cars and suggest that they use public transport instead, and of course it is not well-served by public transport. The number 7 bus serves the route, but it is not as regular as some of my parishioners would hope that it could be. The Senator mentions the long association of the owners with the Parish. I must say that the developer did have the courtesy of contacting me to speak about the proposals for this field and it was one of those instances when my heart sank. When I knew that he wanted to come to speak to me about L127 I was hoping that he would not be coming to me asking me to present this for consideration for rezoning, because my response would have been then an out and out no, but he is known to me from many years ago as a fellow pupil at Hautlieu and he came and we had a catchup

about school, I think, and people we know, and then we got on to the field and I had to say to him, as I have said to others, to go through the due process of the planning application. I think at the time he had already approached Senator Pallett and asked him to take this to or bring this to the Assembly and he did explain to me about the family connection. The family is not known to me, but then I have only been living in the Parish for about 30-odd years. I do not really go far enough back to know everyone in the Parish, and it is laudable that they want to give something back to the Parish, and I think that leads me on to what Deputy Tadier said about being altruistic. I am not sure if he used that word, but gifting something to the Parish, as we have just seen in the lower part of the Parish when a philanthropist bought the Millbrook Playing Fields and gifted them to the public of the Island, and I am still waiting to hear from Government as to what the proposal for the Millbrook Playing Fields is or will be. That is what has happened over the years. Every Parish, I believe, has a Charité field from many years ago when benefactors would either give funds and direct that a Parish buy a field for the public benefit, or they would give fields direct to the Parish. As part of this process my procureurs and I agreed that the 4 fields that are owned by the Parish should be submitted to the full consideration as to whether or not they would be suitable to be built upon, because we wanted to do our bit towards the provision of homes if we were able. The 4 fields were rejected as being completely unsuitable for rezoning, because they are prime agricultural land, and of course we could have made the decision, as Senator Pallett did, to continue and bring them and ask for them to be rezoned, but we respect the planning process and we respect the process that had been undertaken. One of the fields that perhaps would have been the best one is the field, if Members can picture themselves driving along La Grande Route de Saint-Laurent, past the beautifully restored Parish Hall , and past the church, which is the jewel in the crown of Parish churches, but down towards the top of Mont Felard and picture the Millennium Cross as the road joins really the housing on Mont Felard itself. The field that we could have put forward for consideration is the last field on the right-hand side and why would we have done that? Well, exactly the reason that Senator Pallett has brought this, it is because it is next to some houses and a development that is already there, but it is far more built up in that area than Senator Pallett would have us believe for field L127, because anyone who knows the field will know that there are very few buildings around it. It is almost in complete isolation and it is, as I have said, certainly some way away from the small development at Carrefour Selous. I think I am taking a long time to say that this field is not appropriate for rezoning for development. It is not an easy site, Senator Pallett told us. Why is it not an easy site? It is not on the edge of the built-up area. It is rated as last resort by the Jersey Farmers' Union. It is not near good amenities. It would need to provide a pumping station with a holding tank to remove the effluent that would be produced. The Senator tells us in his amendment that this site would form a self-contained pocket of new built-up area. That is exactly what it would be. It would be self- contained. It would be establishing a new built-up area, away from any other built-up area. It would be a new built-up area in the middle of the countryside. It would be covering a field that is in agricultural use and it would be detrimental, as we have read in the Minister's comments, to the character of the countryside, and that is something that we on the Planning Committee have to determine on a very regular basis, would an application, would a development, be detrimental to the character of the countryside, would it be harmful to it? I think it goes without saying, and from what we have heard from Senator Pallett, this would indeed be harmful. I cannot believe I have spoken for 15 minutes almost. I would urge Members to vote against the amendment by Senator Pallett.

[10:15]

4. Deputy J.H. Young of St. Brelade :

I am grateful for the Constable in her speech, because the Constable I think explained to us a lot of the intricacies and the factors that have to be taken into account in any planning decision, and I think that is why we are here. Members will know that the sites that have come through the planning system to get to this stage here, the very most sustainable sites where the factors can make a recommendation for zoning, have been rejected by this Assembly. The very best sites on the edge

for planning-wise, where that planning balance is achieved, around the St. Saviour fringe, around St. Helier , they have gone. So, I am standing here today. We have gone through that now and we are where we are, we are now on this site that we are now discussing and it is the first of 7 individual sites, and I have no doubt that they were brought forward by well-meaning Members, as we have heard from Senator Pallett in this case. I looked back while Senator Pallett was speaking and I thought I would check out where Senator Pallett was in the votes that rejected those sites which were the most sustainable, and he voted against them, and I think that does back up what Senator Pallett is saying, he is wanting to find ways where we can make some inroads for housing. So, the choice for all of us today is what do we do with all of these 7 sites? Now, I have given Members some clues in the planning comments papers that have been circulated and I have been quite open about this. I have said these are the sites, with all the advice that I have had and I completely buy into, these sites we have rated red. The planning arguments are against but I was open in those notes, there are 3 sites there that I thought might be considered as alternatives, and one of those has now gone, that was the one in Grouville , which the Constable has withdrawn. There were some factors there that I thought could be considered, but that has gone. So out of the 7, this is the first, there are 2 that when we get to them then I think there are arguments there, which Members will have to judge, but I want to be clear, none of those 7 are as good as the sites that this Assembly has kicked out. The advice I have got to give to Members, as the Minister responsible if you like, the Minister for the Environment, for the planning system, is I am not about to abandon the planning system. I am going to vote in accordance with making sure that what we end up with does not wreck the spatial strategy of the Island Plan. We have spent decades making sure that this Island's landscape is properly protected, and done our best to look after our agricultural fields, but obviously we have had to make sacrifices. I do not want to go over that again now. About this site, there is no question. This site in St. Lawrence , because I lived in St. Lawrence some years ago so I know it well, and anybody who goes to the auctions that take place nearby, this is open land, absolutely open land, via that beautiful vista as you drive up St. Lawrence main road, a beautiful inner hinterland of St. Lawrence landscape, I think frankly too valuable so it performs really badly. Now it has been argued that it is near Carrefour Selous, but it is isolated on the other side of the road. As the Connétable of St. Lawrence tells us, it would be another standalone isolated pocket of development slap bang in the countryside. My absolutely clear advice is no, not on this site. Then we have got the issue of drainage. Well, the drains are not good enough there. The Minister for Infrastructure and the officers tell us that. Oh, we can have a big holding tank and hold the sewage up and then we can store it and then we can filter it into the system. Absolutely not. That is not the thing to do. It is urbanisation of that area, if we do that, it really would be. It is so harmful to rural character. What have the Jersey Farmers' Union told us? The very arguments that have overridden in this Assembly, they have become absolutely to the top prominence that I take that message and I am sure successors to my role will know this, that now this Assembly values agricultural value above everything else. What do the J.F.U. (Jersey Farmers' Union) tell us? They say this site is the very last place that we should think about housing. I do not know that I need to say more. The planning inspectors back me and of course I do not know where this notion is, and I think this needs to be clear, that we can have some nice open market houses as well just to make it work. No, these amendments are all about policy 8.5. That is affordable housing, no open market. We do not zone land for open market housing. Please, Members, I ask you to get that clear. So, Senator Pallett is absolutely well-meaning, I do not criticise him and I suspect as we go through all the 7 amendments we are going to hear similar moving stories, but nonetheless we have to let our minds rule our hearts. We have to. The planning system is there and we need to respect it. There we are. I think that is probably all I wanted to say, and of course I just mention to illustrate a bit about the emphasis of planning, the Connétable spoke about a site which we did mention might be considered, which is at the top of Mont Felard. It does occur to me, and I have written down, I wonder how close that is to the airport safety zone. All the aircraft fly over that area. We are very chary about building a development underneath the airport flight path. That is one, and there is also the issue of skyline. Now, every planning issue you look at there will be lots

of factors to take into account and what I do think we should do is rely on the judgment of our professionals and the clear judgment in this case, as in most of the other ones to follow but not all, entirely, there are factors that as I have said could weigh and I have got those in the notes there and I am sure Members have seen, and when we come to those sites we will consider that, but this one, no.

5. Senator S.Y. Mézec :

I wish to only make one very brief comment, having listened to the Minister for the Environment just now, who very passionately explains that we do not rezone land to deliver open market housing, and that is of course because there is no need, because they are building so much of it on government- owned land instead. He has got a very inconsistent position on this, but that being said I completely oppose this amendment and urge other Members to do the same.

6. Deputy K.F. Morel of St. Lawrence :

I would like to thank everyone who spoke and the Connétable particularly and the Minister as well as Deputy Tadier . We have all received over the weekend correspondence about this site, and I would like to thank everyone who has emailed States Members to let them know their views. I did find it interesting in his proposition the Senator talked about wanting to give something back to the Parish. The trouble is, the Parish has not asked for this. There has been no request from the Parish for that field and there has been no popular desire to use that field for housing. Effectively, the Parish does not want it. Not only is this absolutely excellent agricultural land, it was ploughed or turned over just the other day. It is in constant use. This is not a field that gets left and ignored. It is used both by dairy, I believe, but particularly for arable and potatoes, but I do believe cows go in there for grazing as well. More than anything, for me this is about ribbon development. To adopt this field would be to adopt ribbon development. There is ribbon development in Jersey, absolutely. The main reason I voted against that field in Grouville , using that field in Grouville , was because it was extending ribbon development and you think about the ribbon of urbanisation along the south of the Island and into the east of the Island and I just thought that we cannot continue that. If we adopt this field, it would be increasing ribbon development up through the north and the heart of the Island and the countryside landscape that defines this Island. That is not a parochial matter. That is an Island matter. This is the landscape that defines this Island for everyone, all 110,000 of us who live in this Island. With ribbon development you are cutting people off from that landscape and that to me is absolutely not. Guernsey, and we will always point to Guernsey when we talk about ribbon development, because that is where they have extensive development; in my opinion it is such a shame. It means that you cannot see a lot of Guernsey from being in Guernsey. You are there and all you see are houses and houses and houses. You do not see the beautiful countryside that Guernsey still has, but as the population it is cut off from it. For me ribbon development is an absolute no and I cannot support building on prime agricultural land when we know there are other sites available. I cannot support ribbon development. I do believe the Senator in his report is really stretching it when he claims that this is effectively part of the Carrefour Selous. I grew up at the Carrefour Selous and I used to deliver papers up the main road past this field, and I know very well that the Carrefour Selous I left it behind. This was the leg of my paper round which took me out into the countryside. I know that, I know the people around there; I delivered their papers for many years. This plot of land is not a part of the Carrefour Selous. Even if it was, the Carrefour Selous is really poorly served by facilities. When I was a child there we had 2 shops and a pub. Today we have got one shop at the Carrefour Selous and a health centre, which I guess is like an anti-pub. While there are bound to be people in the community who use the health centre it is not a community facility, so to speak; it is a private health centre. Outside of that, there are no facilities. There is very little parking, the Constable mentioned the bus route, which is poor - take note Minister for Infrastructure - and therefore is not sustainably serviced by transport. It also backs right on to a green lane network, which in itself I can tell you is unfortunately quite heavily used by a large amount of traffic already

because of Glencoe and the auctions there, because of Jersey Water further down and some other businesses, many of them rural businesses. To increase the traffic along that green lane network would be completely inappropriate. This is not about keeping development out of St. Lawrence . Not only did the Connétable put forward 4 fields as part of that, but also other fields were looked at by the Environment and Planning Department and they were rejected, other fields that stretched from the suburban south of St. Lawrence , we do have suburbia in St. Lawrence ; it is not all countryside, all the way up to nearer the Carrefour Selous and abutting the Carrefour Selous. The Planning Department rejected them, not through any pressure, not through any parochial pressure, but through that rational process that the Planning Department went through. This field was never a part of that, because this field was always I am going to say a ridiculous field to choose for the Island Plan. It makes no sense. It goes against everything that the Island Plan is trying to do. So I do urge Members, please do reject this. I know that it is not right to think that because we have rejected some fields already that the Minister for the Environment supported we should now start accepting all these fields. It is completely wrong to think like that because if we think like this we will be supporting development on fields that are massively unsuitable, as opposed to the fields, which as the Minister said, had more balance in terms of sustainability. Yes, I ask Members please do reject this. It is not appropriate. We have heard all the reasons why. I appreciate and the Connétable is very gracious in saying that due process is afforded to anyone. That is absolutely correct, but it is a shame that this field has made it this far, because the planning inspector clearly and roundly rejected it as a suitable site. The Minister for the Environment rejects it as a suitable site. There is nothing supportable in this site.

[10:30]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Deputy . Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? I call upon the Senator to reply.

7. Senator S.W. Pallett:

I want to thank Members for their comments this morning. Myself, the owner and the agents have certainly appreciated the views of Members. I also appreciate the fact that I have not been overly castigated for bringing it forward. I know Deputy Morel has got really strong views about this field, and I heard that at the planning inspector's review, so it was not a surprise to me that he has given the views that he has. It has been a good debate; I think it has flushed out many of the issues, including the drainage, if you do not mind me saying that. I will just briefly go through what Members have said. Deputy Tadier mentioned that it could be gifted to the Parish, and he is quite right. If it was to be gifted to the Parish for housing it would still need to be rezoned, but nevertheless there are other things. The site could be kept as farming land for perpetuity, but that is for another day. He mentioned that I brought this forward in an honourable capacity and I appreciate the fact that he said that. He mentioned that there were other fundamental issues that needed to be addressed, and I agree with him on that particular point. He mentioned that it was still speculative. I suppose any building development, however philanthropic it is, there will be a degree of speculation in it, but in terms of this one I think it is on a very small scale. He mentioned an interesting point about security of tenure for farmers and I think that is something that we do need to consider moving forward, so that farmers do have the security that they can farm on fields for as long as they need to. I do agree with him that comments made by many of the members of the public who live in St. Lawrence over the weekend were not N.I.M.B.Y. comments, and I did not take them as such. I want to thank them for their comments. I think they were all balanced comments and I think all Members would be appreciative of the fact that they were balanced. The Constable of St. Brelade is right, the I.H.E. (Infrastructure, Housing and Environment) Department are not supportive in terms of the drainage and he brought up the issue of the maintenance of the holding tank. It is not something I considered but I am sure it is something that the developer has considered but he is right, there could

be an issue with that. Being a former Parish Constable I always respect the view of the Constable of the Parish where there is an issue, and this particular issue is very much a St. Lawrence issue. She mentioned earlier it was a good field with good soil, comments from the farmer, and there were far more suitable fields, but she did say that it was up to me if I wanted to bring it through in terms of a vote today to let Members make their own minds up, so I do appreciate that and that there is a process to follow and we are following that process today. She talked a lot about the Planning Committee and issues that would come in front of them if this was brought forward and at the end of the day she considered it to be a prime agricultural site. Deputy Morel and the Constable I think have questioned the proximity of Carrefour Selous. It is a matter of opinion how far away it is, but I think again Members can make their own minds up on that. I agree with her, I think there are always opportunities to improve bus routes, and again we have had it on other debates as well where that has been mentioned as a potential negative, but that is something that can maybe be brought forward by LibertyBus. Again, she mentioned potentially gifting the field. I am sure that is something for the owner to decide, but I am sure they are listening and will make their own view on that and that this field was in complete isolation, I do not necessarily agree with that although, as I have said, it is on what I consider to be the edge of a built-up area, but again Members can make their own mind up on that. Senator Mézec made a good point around the open market on government-owned land and then we moved on to Deputy Morel , again, as I have said, who I knew had very strong views on this. I heard him at the planning inspector's review. As the Parish Deputy I had no doubt that he would want to protect this site. He clearly knows his patch very well and I am glad to hear that he had a paper round. I thought I was the only one who did a paper round that was in the States. I am glad to hear that I am not the only one who had a paper round. Going back to being slightly more serious, he mentioned that St. Lawrence had put forward other sites and I think we have got to accept that St. Lawrence have tried to play their part, but that this went against the Government Plan and his view was that there was very little to gain from this and a lot to lose. I think I have summed up what Members have said. I said at the start there is always a balance to be struck and this may be striking the balance too far in one direction. I am sure Members will have made their minds up, but I do appreciate the fact that we have had a debate on this site, because I think it has brought out issues that may well be issues that are debated on the other sites that Deputy Young mentioned. I will just mention Deputy Young. Again, he is right, in many ways there are issues around this particular site that he clearly does not support. His comments clearly do not support the use of this particular field and Members again are going to have to take that on board. I have got a suspicion about where this is likely to go, but I do thank Members for their time and appreciate the comments given this morning and I ask for the appel, please.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. Those joining the meeting via the Teams link are invited to cast their votes in the chat channel and I ask the Greffier to open the voting for Members in the Chamber. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been rejected.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting pour, Senator Pallett and the Deputy of St. Martin .

2. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - fiftieth amendment: Field MY493, St. Mary (P.36/2021 Amd.(50))

The Deputy Bailiff :

Next is the 50th amendment, lodged by the Connétable of St. Mary and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "the draft Island Plan 2022-25" insert the words "except that – (a) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes in Policy H5 – Provision of affordable homes – 8. Field MY493 St. Mary (1.03 hectares/5.7 vergées)'; with the remaining items re-numbered accordingly; (b) the draft Island Plan 2022-25 be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of (a); and (c) the Draft Bridging Island Plan Proposals Map Part A – Planning Zones be amended to reflect the adoption of (a)."

2.1   Connétable J. Le Bailly of St. Mary :

May I point out that the first paragraph of this proposition may have a misleading statement in the last line as it states that the field is considered an ideal site for development by the Parish? This gives the impression that it is a unanimous Parish Assembly decision. It is not, as we also have a few N.I.M.B.Y.s who thankfully are a minority. It would be better if the description read "for the Parish" rather than "by the Parish." I take full responsibility in presenting this proposition against the wishes of the minority. I am concerned. If we are to take this housing crisis seriously, we have to accept unfavourable decisions and personal preferences cannot be selfishly included if we are to achieve our housing problem. I want to help people to a better life. The "I am all right, Jack" situation will not achieve that. Field 493 is a field owned by a former St. Mary farmer who sees no agricultural benefit for the field to be retained. He is prepared to relinquish its use in order to provide first-time buyer housing. If this field is accepted for housing the Parish will benefit greatly, as the owner will gift one-third of the field to the Parish, providing it is also used for first-time buyer housing. We owe that opportunity to some of the vast number of people who are desperate for a home of their own. It may be that our small Parish could be the answer to many people's future, if a positive result is administered. If the Parish and indeed the Island is to remain viable then it is necessary to provide housing for local people and incoming skilled workers in order for them to be encouraged to stay in the Island and continue to preserve our existence. It is important that we look after people who are prepared to work in this Island. Any site put forward attracts a N.I.M.B.Y. objection, however these people are normally very comfortable in their own homes, which are on what was once a green field, but now they choose to take a very selfish attitude towards others. People tell me that they want to see wide open spaces with no development. We have that; we are on an Island. We are surrounded by water. That is a guaranteed area that will remain unbuilt on. I do not believe that all the Island should be built on because of that. Accepting this field today does not mean that it is a fait accompli. There are still many procedures that have to be overcome in order for that to happen. Accepting this proposition, however, gives hope to people. It also gives our Parish an asset. This is a matter of principle. We should not be looking to the elections or to appeasing the N.I.M.B.Y.s. I will not be intimidated by them to do so. I hope that Members feel the same.

[10:45]

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]  

1. Deputy D. Johnson of St. Mary :

I think there have been few occasions in this Assembly where I have been in direct conflict with the opinion of my own Constable and it gives me no great pleasure to be so today. I am grateful for him clarifying the first paragraph of his report, as he said it was originally a field considered an unideal site for development by the Parish, and from the number of emails I have had in I was wondering where he got the information from. Certainly, it is not the minority of the Parish that opposes it. It is the vast majority. To give a certain element of background, it is the case, as in St. John , there was a Parish Assembly some maybe 2 years ago where a former panel was appointed with a view to considering potential sites and I do emphasise the words "potential sites". It is my clear

understanding that having identified sites they would come back to the Parish by way of Parish Assembly to consider and take a vote on what should be put forward. My understanding, and I am a member of that panel, is that there have been no more than 2 meetings of that panel and while it may be that a slight majority were in favour of this, as I say there has been no mandate of the Parish, and that has caused a lot of, dare I say, animosity, it is fair to say. The number of emails I received, well, I cannot say far exceeded those I received before, because I have received none before, and those emails include copies of emails to the Constable asking him to withdraw the proposition. I wish to place on record that I do not believe it is N.I.M.B.Y. members of the Parish who are opposing it. They are opposing it for the very good reasons that the Minister for the Environment has set out in his summary. I do accept that this Assembly is not here to place undue weight on the wishes of parishioners who will obviously have vested interests, but I was heartened by the comment made by the Constable of St. Helier earlier last week about the wishes of all St. Helier residents to be considered in decisions and the fact that they needed cars so they could enjoy the benefits of this Island, and that harks back to one of my earliest memories in the States, when I was first elected in 2014. One of the 5 priorities was that there should be a greater amount of building and that should be concentrated in St. Helier , and I congratulate the Deputies of St. Helier at the time for their unselfishness in backing that, but why did they back that? Because they are concerned about the Island as a whole and not just their own Parish. Similarly, I am concerned about the Island as a whole and St. Helier and, as something of an aside, I have since that date wherever possible carried out what I think is my moral duty to support the Constable of St. Helier in his wish for open spaces, to better the lives of St. Helier residents. This is not a parochial matter and the reasons why my own parishioners oppose any development is for the very reasons that the Minister for the Environment has said in his report, and I do not wish to steal his thunder in quoting him, but the reasons why the Minister cannot support the development of the site is because: "The site is considered to form part of a group of the fields in the inner core' of the village, which give the village much of it character, which are important in allowing unimpeded views and helping to form an uncluttered landscape setting to core historic buildings. As such, development on this site will cause significant adverse landscape and visual impacts." To a certain extent that mirrors the comments made by Deputy Morel and others in the last debate. We are here to preserve the landscape not for the benefit of individual Parishes but for the benefit of the Island as a whole, which in turn will benefit our tourism industry. We cannot risk overdeveloping, because Jersey will cease to be an attractive venue. For those reasons I vehemently oppose the proposition, which as I say is not supported by the vast majority of my parishioners.

2. Deputy J.H. Young:

I am entirely happy always to have my thunder stolen and it is very good when Members read the planning comments and speak of them so I do not have to repeat what the Deputy said. I think I would just remind Members that we have already included a site in St. Mary Parish, another site that went through the evaluation process and did score sufficiently well to be able to be included. I have to say not as good as the ones that you have rejected, because I think what the Members have done in this debate is they have set the bar. They have said: "Now, that is the bar for zoning" and so I think this one I am afraid because I do have to accept that the Connétable is well-meaning. I know he passionately wants to achieve housing. I have not checked how the Connétable voted on other matters, but I suspect he voted against rejecting those fields that were put forward. Nonetheless we have to deal with what is now before us. There is no question, this will be a hugely damaging field to develop, not just for St. Mary but for the whole Island. It is really important to agriculture in that area and of course public transport is poor. We are told the drainage system does not have capacity to be able to work with this, so here we are, we have got another whole set of planning issues that have to come into these evaluations and of course our Minister for Infrastructure knows very well, he would love to have fantastic main drains all around the Island with pumping stations but so far I do not know how we have got to this, but Members know that I believe we want to be able to invest

in that sewerage network around, but we have not got it, so what we cannot do is promote developments where the system is simply not there. This one is about I am afraid it is in the same category as the previous one. My absolute advice is no. This site is not suitable for development, so I propose to vote against it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Minister. Does any other Member wish to speak on this amendment? I call upon the Connétable to reply.

3. The Connétable of St. Mary :

I would dispute that there are a majority of people against this development, as suggested by our Parish Deputy . It is essential that we do pass some of these fields for development or we have just wasted a whole of a week. There are desperate people out there wanting a house, wanting a home. What are we trying to do to help that problem? Not very much at the moment. I can appreciate the view expressed by our Minister for the Environment, but that does not solve our problem. When you vote please ensure that to do so will improve the lives of many desperate people who want a home.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Is the appel called for? The appel has been called for. Members are invited to return to their seats. Those Members joining the meeting by the Teams link are asked to cast their votes in the chat channel and I invite the Greffier to open the voting for Members in the Chamber. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that the amendment has been rejected.

3. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) – sixty-seventh amendment: Use of fields G508, G508A, G526, G526A G521A, Grouville (P. 36/2021 Amd.(67))

The Deputy Bailiff :

The 67th amendment has been lodged by Deputy Wickenden and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "the draft Island Plan 2022-25" insert the words "except that - (a) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes at Policy H5 - Provision of affordable homes - "2. Fields G508, G508A Grouville (1.50 hectares/8.34 vergées)"; (b) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes at Policy H5 - Provision of affordable homes - "3. Fields G526, G526A and 521A Grouville (1.42 hectares/7.87 vergées)"; (c) the draft Island Plan 2022-25 should be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of paragraphs (a) and (b); and (d) the Draft Bridging Island Plan Proposals Map Part A - Planning Zones should be amended to reflect the adoption of paragraph

1. and (b).

3.1   Deputy S.M. Wickenden of St. Helier :

Every time I have been on the hot seat for BBC Radio Jersey, taking part in an "Ask the Ministers" event where I get to answer questions directly from the public as Minister for Children and Education, I have always been asked how the children of Jersey are ever going to be able to afford a house and what could be done to stop our Island's children from leaving the Island due to not being able to afford a home. I am bringing this amendment forward as part of the solution to helping provide first- home buyer homes and to give some home owners the opportunity to downsize, allowing families to upsize, releasing smaller properties to the market to allow other smaller families to upsize, releasing flats to allow first-home buyers opportunities to get on the housing market. This is why despite the calls from some house owners in the Parish to withdraw my amendment, I have persisted. As I said in my report, Grouville has a very poor record in contributing to first-home buyer houses and affordable homes, with only 6 units being provided in 20 years. I am trying to be a voice for the Grouville parishioners who want to stay in the Parish, near their family members who also live in the Parish, but do not have the ability to purchase. When the Minister for the Environment started the process for the bridging Island Plan, the Constable of Grouville wrote to his parishioners to collect evidence to better understand the housing needs within the Parish, stating that 3 surveys had been prepared to understand the potential need for over-55 housing, first-home buyer housing and social rented housing.

The results showed that there were 59 requests for over-55 housing and 29 requests for first-home buyer housing. The Parish also sent out letters to call for sites to the landowners of the Parish to ask them to put forward their sites for affordable housing. The landowner of these sites I am proposing received one of these letters asking them to put these sites forward for affordable housing. The letter stated that once all the sites are known, the Parish intends to hold a meeting of the Parish to give the parishioners the opportunity to discuss the merits or otherwise of each site. Unfortunately, I am not aware that the Parish ever called a meeting to gauge the parishioners' views so all I have got to go on is the response to the letter asking about the need in the Parish. As I mentioned earlier, the landowner submitted the fields to the bridging Island Plan and was assessed as all other sites were, and the site scored well under the assessment. Those are the exact words directly out of the assessment response. The site failed only one point under accessibility but met the requirements for spatial strategy, landscape analysis, use and land sensitivity. I repeat, the site scored well under the assessment and failed only by one point. This site sits between a built-up housing area and greenhouses that are currently growing potatoes and are in good condition and use, not left to ruin like so many in the Island. This site also cannot be seen from the road, unlike others that were put forward in the Parish. The site would be a logical extension to the built-up area and would be within walking and cycling distance of Holme Grown farm shop and the Parish recycling centre. If approved, the site would also be within cycling distance of other shops, services and amenity in the area as well as Grouville Parish School. The beach is also within walking distance. The site is relatively flat, already well-screened and more planting could be included along all boundaries to enhance local wildlife. Building on the site would not fill in an important open gap across the coastal plan from La Route des Sablons. The site can be connected to mains infrastructure, including mains drains, water supply and electricity. There is also a gas main at La Rue de Fauvic. Any risk of future flooding has been considered and the watercourse that runs along the southern boundary of the site would be enhanced for wildlife. The site is ideally placed for any future residents to access the eastern cycle route. Any children living on the site could also cycle to school. The route is flat and the route to Grouville Primary School could be mostly along Parish roads. Le Rocquier School is only a 10-minute cycle away. Future residents would have lots of choice about accessing sustainable transport. There are 2 excellent and regular bus routes close by on La Route de Fauvic and La Grande Route des Sablons. The owner of the fields would be very happy to work with LibertyBus to provide new bus stops on these roads if it is needed. In the Minister's submission to refuse the site, one of the reasons was due to the medium risk of flooding. I have been to the site and I have looked at the flooding maps, of which I have one in front of me, and I can inform Members that the site does not sit on a flood area and sits higher up than the houses beside it. We know that due to a pressure group in the Parish the Constable has withdrawn his Parish sites, further dashing the hopes some of these parishioners had to buy a property and stay in their Parish. In the interview announcing the Constable's retirement in the J.E.P. (Jersey Evening Post) on 29th October 2021, the Constable stated that before he leaves he wanted to focus on issues relating to the Island Plan, notably the provision of affordable housing for first-home buyers and retired parishioners. I would ask the Constable to follow in the footsteps of the Constables of St. John and St. Peter to follow through on his wish stated in the J.E.P. to support and provide for his parishioners who have a need for housing in the Parish, not just listen to those parishioners who are fortunate enough to live comfortably in their houses, and to do this today by supporting my amendment. The family that has put forward the land to provide affordable homes for Grouville were not some big property developers or greedy landowners that have bought the land in a hope to build houses and profit off the investment. This is a family that have set up a farm shop to serve the community, create community facilities, open the facilities for use by parishioners during COVID when the Parish Hall was not open. They have allowed their land to be used at no cost for a place that parishioners could drop off their recycling, which is widely used by the community, and they work with Island charities that need help. The Island and the Parish

went out to ask landowners to put forward sites for the needed affordable homes in the Parish and this family has responded to the Island's need by doing just that. I have been round many of our schools since I have been the Minister for Children and Education and I have spoken to many students and they themselves have spoken to me about their concerns around being able to stay in Jersey when they grow up as they today do not feel that they will ever be able to afford a home here in Jersey. In earlier debates, and by some parishioners, there has been talk about sorting immigration first before building more houses. I will say that if we do not start building now we will lose our youngest and brightest and we will never be able to diminish our requirement for inward migration in Jersey. To sum up, the children need to know that they will have hope of buying a house in the future. The parishioners have asked for more affordable housing. The site only missed out by one point and is well positioned in the Parish. The parishioners that are looking for a house in the Parish did not get a chance by the Parish to have a voice and this site cannot be seen by the road and is close to local amenities and connected to the main services. I ask the Assembly to support this amendment, not listen to the voices on the periphery, and to help provide the much-needed homes in the beautiful Parish of Grouville . I propose this amendment.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded]

1. Deputy M. Tadier :

I do not need to repeat the point that I know that everyone's motivation is correct and that there is widespread frustration about accessibility to housing and the fact that we have a housing crisis. I do not think that the owners of the field should be criticised for responding to a call for possible sites. They did that and they went through a process and it was found that their site was not appropriate. I have already said that I do not want to be glib this morning, so I will not say that you could, for example, say that you want to build housing on the moon and that it might be a really great place to build housing but it only failed on one point, which was accessibility, and apart from that there is lots of open space up there and it might be great if we could sort out the atmosphere problem. So it might be failing on 2 points. The point I would make to the Minister, who is a Minister and who I know stands by process quite a lot .. he considers process to be a really important part of government. I would say to him how would he feel if every student who has done a G.C.S.E. (General Certificate of Secondary Education), A-level or an H.N.D. (Higher National Diploma), whatever qualification it is, were to come to him and say: "My son, my daughter, they just missed out on such-and-such an exam by just one point and if they had have got that point they might have got the requirement to do their A-levels, to get into one of the 6th form colleges or to go to university, but they just missed out on their exam by one point and of course they went through the process, and they went through an appeals process but they somehow managed to find a States Member who could advocate for them and, even though they had been through the proper process, put a proposition in to ask for special pleading." That is kind of what we have here really. We have this field that the Deputy thinks is an appropriate field to develop but the process, his own Minister and the process that it has been through with the planning inspector, does not think it is an appropriate location and clearly the Parish Assembly, I think, has also told us this is not an appropriate location for housing. So who do we listen to? Do we listen to the Minister for Children and Education who wants to help somebody who responded to the call but lost out by one point or do we go with the process and the Parish? I think I know which one I will tend to go with but I am certainly going to listen to what the Deputy has to say in summing up, but I would also like to hear from the direct representatives of the Parish if they are able to elucidate further, which I am sure they will.

2. Connétable J.E. Le Maistre of Grouville :

As I explained last week, we had a Parish requete where people were allowed to come and express their view. I do accept, I think it was Deputy Martin who said, that maybe some people who want

affordable housing may feel intimated about attending Parish Assemblies and certainly may not feel free to speak at them. But every time we publicised the meeting and there was an article in the Jersey Evening Post, I said: "Please email me", and I only had one email. That was very disappointing for me because I do know there is a need out there and even if I had had a handful of people at the Parish Assembly I can act independently, and here I would have tried to provide some housing for that minority. Of course I know they exist. I will read out the proposition at the Parish Assembly and it included some of the fields that have now been withdrawn. It was: "To request the Constable to relay to the States Assembly their strong objections, on environmental and other grounds, to the proposed rezoning for affordable homes of the following fields in Grouville and their opposition to proposed amendments to the Island Plan." It refers to this proposition. As I explained last week, I took a show of hands and there was not one hand that went up for these fields to be rezoned; not one. So the term "strong objection" could not really be stronger and, as I said last week, the passion among the members of the audience was palpable. I cannot express too much how much the Parish is against it. I am a bit disappointed that Deputy Wickenden did not speak to me about putting this proposition forward. If he had done so, I would have explained to him that I was not prepared to propose them and had been asked to do so, and indeed I have always objected to these fields on a number of grounds. Members know that I am a retired farmer, so I have worked these fields. They are extremely good fields. They are last resort on the Farmers' Union scale. As I explained last week, it is a bit of a microclimate down there. It is really good early land that you can grow just about any summer crop that you can grow in Jersey down there. It is true that you could not harvest over winter crops, but that is why it is so important environmentally and I will come to that a little bit later. It has been mentioned about N.I.M.B.Y.s, and I still think it is a dreadful term, because it will affect people's enjoyment of their houses that probably overlook the countryside. While it is not a very good reason for not retaining a field, I acknowledge that those people's lives and the value of their houses will be diminished. As agricultural land, what people may not realise is the size of the field is important. If you can imagine 2 fields of the same width and one is 4 vergées and one of them is 8 vergées, whatever operation you do, you do the same number of turns when you are cultivating the field, so the downtime, the wasted time is double on a 4 vergée to an 8 vergée field and these 2 fields are both approximately 8 vergées. They are side by side, so equally if you take your harvesting gang, which is tractor and trailer, 2 vans, probably £100,000-plus worth of machinery, plus of course the staff who by the time you have paid social security and holiday pay, 10 people who are on £120 an hour, every minute counts. The time from one field to the next or from the farm to a field all adds up. Again, it will be twice the cost on a 4 vergée field to an 8 vergée field, so they are really good fields to work. As I explained, it is sandy soil for potatoes and other root vegetables, very easy to harvest. I was very impressed by the Constable of St. Lawrence who mentioned short turns. Some Members will not know what she was referring to but the shape of the field is important as well and the longer and the straighter the fields the easier and more efficient they are to work. Obviously, the ribbon development argument does not really fit in here.

[11:15]

On the other hand, if you turn off the coast road or Route des Sablons and you turn up towards Fauvic crossroads, which carries on to St. Clement 's Church, you are on a country road with countryside either side. I ask the question: is this the beginning of the new ribbon along that road? It is. It does border the main road. The other day I asked Members to imagine if we did not have ribbon development along the coast road then I suspect that this whole area would be similar to the St. Ouen area and we would have an eastern coastal path and a western coastal path. Just as we would not dream of putting a 17 vergée at Les Mielles, we should not be doing that here either. There is no village around these fields at all. At least the Minister's field a quarter of a mile up the road had a built-up area to the north and between the main road and the sea. There is only really one row of houses, and I think there is a couple just on the corner and on the coastal side of the main road there is only one house. So this is hardly a built-up area and it is certainly not a village and it is not really

that close to some of the amenities. It is true there is a farm shop there, Holme Grown. It is fantastic but it is really niche market products that are sold there, some really different products but it is not somewhere that somebody who is living in an affordable home is going to do their daily and weekly shop because the Co-op, which is a fair way away, or Iceland next door, is the sort of place where you get really valuable food. So, I cannot really see any merit in this. The Deputy was right that, yes, I would like to provide some affordable homes and the site I had was also rejected. It had a lot more going for it than this site and the big disadvantage with it was its proximity to Grouville Marsh. So, I cannot think of any good reason for this proposition to go forward. Nobody is in favour of it. The Minister, the planning inspector, the land control team, the Farmers' Union, the Parish, me and old Uncle Tom Cobley are against this proposition and I urge Members to reject it.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Connétable , will you accept a point of clarification from Deputy Higgins? The Connétable of Grouville :

Yes, Sir.

Deputy M.R. Higgins of St. Helier :

The proposer in his report mentions that Grouville has only built 6 affordable housing units in the last 20 years. Can the Constable just remind me what fields have been put forward by the Parish that have been accepted by parishioners in the Island Plan this time and why they have not put forward others in the past?

The Deputy Bailiff :

The first part is a point of clarification. You did mention what you proposed to the Minister. The second part probably is not but, Connétable , do you want to respond to that point of clarification?

The Connétable of St. Grouville :

Can you tell me what the first part was, please, Sir?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Do you want to repeat the first part of your question, Deputy Higgins? Deputy M.R. Higgins:

Thank you, Sir. I mentioned, first of all, how the proposer in his report mentions that only 6 affordable houses have been built in the Parish in the last 20 years and I asked how many proposals that have been put forward for building in the Parish over the last 20 years have been accepted by the Parish.

The Deputy Bailiff :

That was the part of your question I disallowed as not being a point of clarification because it was not mentioned by the last speaker.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

With respect, Sir, he did mention that the parishioners had voted down all these things at this recent meeting and I believe that is the implication in the past, so I would like clarification on that. If we are being asked to vote, I would like to fully understand the Parish's contribution to affordable housing in the Island in the past.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I will allow the question in the circumstances. Connétable , can you respond to the question?

The Connétable of St. Grouville :

I think so, Sir. I cannot remember us having a full Parish meeting to decide upon sites. The 6 houses that were referred to the Parish was not involved in. We were hoping to be involved in the whole of that project and we were in discussions with the landowners long before the Island Plan process started, or certainly a year or 2 before. There is another affordable house site on the Rue des Maltières. I am not sure off the top of my head how many houses there are there. So there has been some. I openly admit that I should have perhaps tried to get the Parish on board with the site I was proposing, and that was a mistake because I know there were a lot of people in the audience the other evening who said to me afterwards these are not the right sites, we will have to find somewhere else. That is very difficult, of course, and a number of them did say to me that if you could mitigate against the fact that it was near the S.S.I. (site of special interest) and we had a big enough and well-managed buffer zone that it may well have been an option, but to my knowledge we have not had a Parish Assembly to vote on sites as such.

3. Deputy C.F. Labey of Grouville :

I would just like to say that I am against these sites. The question has been asked why have not the elected Members been bringing this forward and it should be Deputy Wickenden. The simple answer to that is I was asked to take these fields forward but refused because I do not agree with them, purely for the reason that this is good agricultural land and for the same reasons - well, similar reasons - as the field that I asked to be withdrawn, which was field 392A. They are in active agricultural use and that is why I refused to take them forward. Also, just to answer a few points that have been raised, I have been extremely disappointed in the process that has taken place here, especially in Grouville . I was not a party to a planning committee that was set up by the Constable to look at sites, which I think was unfortunate that the elected Members were not included in such a process. I think we should have been and we should have held a proper Parish Assembly where all views could have been taken into account for all the sites. So, I do not think that the process has been terribly well thought out in the Parish. However, having said that, Deputy Tadier raised the issue about we have had the planning inspector look at these sites and the Minister has put certain sites forward, so why is this happening? Why are elected Members bringing other sites forward? Well, I would just say to Deputy Tadier , I am glad that Members have the opportunity to bring different sites forward because quite clearly with site 392A that we voted on last week the inspector approved the site but clearly it is the democratic process that should decide these things. Yes, we can listen to the inspector and their views and opinions and the views and opinions of the Minister for the Environment, that all feeds into the democratic process, but I always felt that field 392A was the wrong site because of the ribbon development, because it was agricultural land. It was simply the wrong site and with due respect we know the area far better than the inspector that has been brought over here to look at a site for 5 or 10 minutes. So, I am glad that there is a democratic process and this is it, Deputy Tadier , so we can all communicate and discuss the sites put forward but we do not always have to agree with them.

4. Deputy J.H. Young:

I have to advise Members of a number of very significant factors in this decision. First of all, this is the largest site in the entire bridging Island Plan for housing that we are making decisions on. That is really important. This site we are talking about would produce, on the figures I am given, 102 homes. Now we know this part of the Island, this south-east corner. There is no question in my mind this is a rural corner at the moment and it is part of a charming area of flat land on the edge of the coast there, and this would absolutely transform its character if these were approved. Of course, if that is not enough, we have got currently 2 live planning applications to the west. Those applications are out to public consultation at the moment. They have not been agenda'd for any planning committee. They are major applications. They are immediately adjacent to the sites we  are discussing here and at the moment the planning officers have asked me to make a decision on whether

or not I call a planning inquiry because the scale of this development would be so big as to have major implications for that area. So that is a decision that I chose not to make, whether or not to do that, until I know what is happening with this proposal being lodged by Deputy Wickenden. Again, I have no criticism of the intention. I think we are in this situation where for me it is regrettable that we have ended up abandoning and rejecting what are the best sites under our planning process, but that is behind us, but there are very, very significant effects for going for some of these sites that came forward late in the day. These sites here were put forward by the landowner to the Island Plan process right at the start, so I please want to clarify this. The sites are not entirely new. They came forward when the Island Plan was first published and representations were made to the planning inspector. I praise Deputy Wickenden. He has picked on quite a number of positive points when he proposed the proposition, but my duty is to advise you of the negative points. There was one very significant inaccuracy in what he said. He said the site is not in the medium flood risk. Well, I have looked at the map outside with the officers and I can say that the southern part of the site, that is 526, 526A and 521A, is in the medium flood risk, as determined by the experts who we brought in to help us with our coastal zone management plan as to where we should be building housing and where we should not. But it is true that the northern part of the site, as proposed here, sites 508 and 508A, are not in the medium flood risk, so I suppose I put that clarification. The policy for that sits elsewhere in the plan, WER2, that says residential development in medium flood risk areas should only happen if exceptionally justified. I do not believe that criterion of exceptional circumstances is met in this case. So that is the southern part of the site, but of course I also note that Deputy Wickenden's proposition does not say what it is going to do there but I see it has 2 parts to it. He has split the proposition, I think, if I can find it here, into 2. Yes, I think he has done that under (a) and (b). So Members might consider that but I am certainly not departing from the recommendation against both. Deputy Wickenden also made this point about missed out by one point. I think I would like to explain that the point system was used for the very first stage of evaluation because when you get hundreds of sites one has to do a screening.

[11:30]

There were a very large number of sites that got quite close to the top scores but then all of those sites were then subjected to a detailed site assessment in much more detail. It is that which resulted in the factors against outweighing, very considerably, the potential benefits. I think given all in the round, the context here is one that there are a lot of pressures on this area anyway. We have a live planning application and that will replace or propose to replace what is there with a hospice shop, with a residential nursing home and energy centre, what is called, which is all the plant and gubbins that are required - excuse my phrase, Sir, the infrastructure - to enable the greenhouses to go into a cannabis facility, which of course, if this zoning is approved, then the housing estate will be immediately adjacent to the cannabis centre. At the moment that does not require an application unless they do any processing there or if there is any infrastructure needed. That is why they have put in for the energy plant, but I do propose, as I have said and Members know, to change the regulations anyway so that may well need an application, I believe, very shortly. There is a lot of context in that area but I think, listening to the Connétable , my view is Grouville is obviously a Parish which I would be very, very surprised if there are not people in Grouville that have housing needs the same as other parts of the Island, and I absolutely respect the Constable here. I think he was put in a pretty terrible position, frankly. I think what was unsettling is the very large number of amendments that came out of the woodwork very late. The Deputy of Grouville is absolutely right, it is Members' democratic right to make democratic decisions. I am not criticising that, but of course that did lead .. when we had so many in that part of the Island, what happened was the end result of that, I can understand it, is that the site that came out best, impacted least, would have provided a small amount of housing but a valuable one for residents of Grouville , has gone, has been lost. I did make the point that there were 3 sites in the sites that were added, were proposed later. One of those was proposed by the Constable of Grouville . There was another site in Grouville , which my

published comments say I believe could have been considered as an alternative, unlike where I am saying on this one, no, I do not believe it is an alternative. But unfortunately, the Constable, as he has explained and I fully understand that, was put in a position where he had no choice to remove that proposal in that part of the Island, which was, I believe, capable, where there were no exits, which I thought this Assembly would very much benefit from having that debate, but we have not been able to have it. So, what has come through at the end of the day is one site that in my view is absolutely unsuitable, of huge impact. So, I recommend to Members that they do not support this site.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Will you accept a point of clarification from Deputy Higgins? Deputy J.H. Young:

Absolutely, Sir, of course.

Deputy M.R. Higgins:

The Minister said that with the proposal for the cannabis development, which includes an energy plant, et cetera, that he was asked by his officers to have a planning inspector look at it. If this proposition goes through, will he ask for an inspector's report on both the cannabis growing plant and the housing? That is number one. In fact, I will leave it at that, because I may speak later.

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I brought that in because I thought Members should understand the context of what is likely or something that may change in this area. It is very, very significant. I have not made that decision yet but the advice I have received is that certainly if this housing development zoning were to be approved it absolutely meets the criteria of a planning inquiry, which would have to take place, but not a planning inquiry into the zoning. If the States make that decision and the plan is approved, that is a fact. Any planning inquiry I am talking about would be one about the details of the application and so on. So, I am saying that if this zoning should be approved then there is no question it would be a major development of that part of the Island, which would require a planning inquiry. I have not made the decision. If this is rejected I am going to make that decision separately. I do not want to be committed on that at the moment.

The Connétable of Grouville :

A point of clarification if it is not too late, Sir. The Minister mentioned during his speech that this site was brought forward right at the beginning when there was a call for sites. Can he just confirm that all of the amendments, however late they were brought, had to be included in that original call for sites, because the general public do not understand that?

Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, I am sorry, I accept the clarification. I should have made that clear. All of the amendments - we have ended up with 7; is this number 3; yes, it is number 3 - were put forward by landowners in the original process at the start. I suppose what I was really saying is that what happened with those sites, a lot of parishioners in different parts of the Island reacted earlier. One did attempt in the planning process to ensure that everybody was aware of what was going on but unfortunately it is not a perfect process and, from my point of view, I did very much rely on Parish processes, because in some parts of the Island they work well and other parts perhaps less so. Maybe if we got a chance in future Island Plans to change that procedure I think it would be sensible to do that, but it did result in a lot of public reaction. That is what I meant and I think that did worry people for many sites. There were not that many sites in other parts of the Island. Sorry for that clarification. I should have made it clear.

5. Deputy M.R. Le Hegarat of St. Helier :

I have not really spoken, apart from obviously the ones I brought forward myself, in relation to many other propositions brought forward or amendments. My observation is this is in relation to Grouville as a whole. I do go to the Parish quite often because it borders with where I live as well, not obviously in that area, but my observation is this. It is very much flood and I have noticed that when I do go round at certain times of the year there are a lot of the fields that are flooded. There is a lot of water around that area. When I visited along with 3 of my fellow Constables on the trip prior to the debate last week, the officers from Planning advised us that obviously it was a medium flood risk and I can understand why, so I just wanted people to be quite aware that it does flood. It is not that it might happen occasionally. I have observed by going around that district that it floods quite a lot, I would suggest. For me, that would be a concern about the fact that it is classed as a medium flood risk, because I think it actually is, but also the largeness of the fields for me is a real concern. These are really good working fields. You are talking of 8 vergées-plus and nearly 8 vergées. They are significant fields and so I could not possibly support this amendment.

6. Deputy M.R. Higgins:

I will be exceptionally brief. I am concerned about equity, equity in where we build houses. St. Helier , St. Clement , St. Saviour and other Parishes have borne the bulk of housing Islanders and it appears obviously from what the proposer has told us, with only 6 affordable houses in 20 years and very little in the way of development, that Grouville is not shouldering much of the burden. I do think: is it N.I.M.B.Y.ism, is it the fact they do not want to have large numbers of houses built in their Parish, which is very quaint and, I must admit, it is a very nice Parish, but are they carrying their weight? That is one point. Secondly, the inspector. Going back to what the Minister said, if this proposition is passed things like drainage and flooding, things about its location to a cannabis farm and processing, if that is agreed, that would be, I would think, reviewed at exactly the same time as the housing proposition. Equally, the number of houses that could appropriately be built on the site would be considered by the inspector. I personally am leaning towards supporting the amendment.

7. Deputy R.J. Ward :

I just wanted to ask a couple of questions of the proposer. I was looking for how many homes would be built and the Minister suggested that it would be around 102 and perhaps he will nod at me if that was the correct number. It mentions in the report that they can go to school at Grouville or Le Rocquier. I am sure that the proposer, as Minister for Children and Education, probably has the numbers at his fingertips, so that is why I ask the question. How many young people does he feel would, therefore, be going to Grouville Primary School from this development? I know Grouville very well. My children went there and I know it is very full up, as most of the schools are on the Island. What I am worried about again with another development is the talk of affordable housing. I look back on the vote for affordable housing on the waterfront development of a minimum of 30 per cent and I noted that the proposer voted against that, so when there was an opportunity to provide more affordable housing that was voted against by this proposer. I would be interested to see what happens when propositions or amendments come forward for more affordable housing on States- owned sites to see how the proposers for all of these fields vote for affordable housing then. I would ask the Minister again to think carefully about his own amendment, but that is another debate and we are getting off the point. So, I just want to know whether there is certainty that there will be school places available for the homes on this site, because if they are truly affordable you will get families with young children living there, which is a good thing. But I just want to ensure that we are not making promises for things that we cannot keep because of the need for primary schools. If there is not a primary school at Grouville that could take them, where are the plans for the primary schools? Where are the plans for primary schools for all the other developments that we are looking at here? That is one of the issues we have got here, to build wherever you want but there are some services

that are absolutely essential before we carry on and build. If he could just answer that question, that would be much appreciated.

8. Deputy K.F. Morel :

Just very quickly because I know it has been raised, aside from agricultural value, which I think is really important, and the ribbon development, which I have already spoken against, I think we also have to think very carefully about building down not just on a flood plain, effectively, but also getting more and more .. I am thinking about what is the sustainability of housing when faced with sea level rises over time and placing it down there on the coast. I think it is something we should be thinking about in general, not just on this one particular proposition. But it does strike me that as we are told sea levels will be rising, putting housing right next to the highwater mark is not the cleverest thing for us to do.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? I call upon Deputy Wickenden to reply.

9. Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

I have a worry that my opening speech was too good that people are just grasping at things to try and say against it. I thank everyone for taking part in this amendment. Where to start? Deputy Tadier , this is a democratic process. There are processes that we have been through, of course, but the bridging Island Plan and the ability to lodge amendments to the process .. and I do get appeals from students that did not quite get to Hautlieu and did not quite make the mark and they go through a process.

[11:45]

I have done some just the other week to listen and hear from those students about even though they did not hit the mark why they would like or should go to the likes of Hautlieu. So that happens all together. There will be a process somewhere in Reform Jersey proposals to say whether they are sustainable or affordable; will the Deputy be looking at that? The Parish requete that the Constable talked about came in and just said no, no, no, no. I, like the Deputy of Grouville , am a bit disappointed for the parishioners that did not get to have an actual Parish Assembly that was talked about. The Constable talked about some parishioners saying we need to find somewhere, but we have been through a bridging Island Plan process that has taken years, looking at everything that we can, and apparently none of them are acceptable to the parishioners at the moment. I have been on the Planning Committee for a long time and for the Members that have never done it, there is nothing that makes neighbours fall out more than a planning application. It is crazy how much that makes and breaks friendships and the likes when there is a planning application, so I know about neighbourly disputes and having applications next to people's houses. I would have liked to have seen a lot more younger people at that requete, maybe talking about things that are quite intimidating when you have got a former Senator or 2 setting things up and an environmental group. It has got to be really intimidating and it would have been nice for the Parish to set something up that was on the other side, to hear the other story rather than wait for a pressure group to do it. Deputy Young has pushed out a lot there. There are a lot of open planning applications all over the Island and I did not quite get why Deputy Young was talking about undetermined planning applications because there are plenty that go on. There is a possibility that you could build 102 homes on this site but it would have to go through the planning application process. It would need to be judged against everything in that process to be able to go anywhere. In one of our first debates Deputy Morel was talking about this is an enabling situation. It still has to go through other processes, so the fear factor of there will be 102 houses and that there are open planning applications that have not been determined yet I think was pushing it a little bit too far in the argument against. Of course, I have split the site up into the southern and northern and I will be taking these again, so for Deputy Le Hegarat , if you are worried

about the perception or the idea that this could be an area of flooding, even though it is higher up than the houses next door, part (b) is not in a flood plain area and could provide some of the much- needed homes for parishioners that are in there. I would ask Deputy Le Hegarat to consider maybe voting for part (b) that would allow some housing to be built for the parishioners that are looking for something to be able to stay near their families and to buy a house. Deputy Higgins was spot on about equality and equity in how these are, and I thank you for what you have said. Deputy Ward , of course, yes, I mentioned earlier 102 houses but that does not mean there will be 102 houses on there. It means that there should be a site being built that goes through a planning application that sets out what is the best way forward for the site that is there. The schools itself, although the primary school is quite full at the moment, if Grouville do not build houses for young families the school will be empty. Le Rocquier has plenty of capacity but if we start saying in Grouville : "Well, that is it, we are not doing anything and we are just going to have an ageing population there" there will be no children that will go to the school because none will be able to live there. Deputy Guida talked quite well last week about the difference between building in town and in some other places and building on open clear sites out in the countryside and how that makes a difference within the building and creation of affordable housing and its affordability on sites such as this. So that is where the difference comes on, and I think rising sea levels is interesting. It was interesting to hear. This site is well-positioned. It has got access to all of the electricity and water. It is hidden away behind other houses that were once upon a time a garage, I think, and a farm, the houses that are there now. It is a perfect opportunity to build some beautiful, much needed affordable homes for parishioners and Islanders and young people. As the Constable of St. Mary said earlier, this plan, as we are going through this process, is getting to a point where it is going to just not be worth voting for altogether because we are not going to be providing anything in here. The headlines will be that we will not be building any new houses and young people will decide .. they will just have no hope and they will want to leave the Island, because why? This may not be the best site. It is better than the site at St. Peter that we have passed. The site at St. Peter is on better agricultural land and it is big fields right in the middle of the Parish that will change the view going through that Parish considerably. This at least will be hidden away and is, in my view, far less damaging to agriculture and landscape and the setting than this one. It surprises me that the Minister has chosen to accept such and then is turning down others. I would ask Members to consider if you cannot do it and you are worried about flooding, do not do (a) but consider (b) so we can build these houses that are required. This site is far less damaging than others that have been done and could really help. Grouville have got no other option. Everything else has been removed. This is the only last hope for the young families in the Parish to be able to think that they will be able to afford to stay in the Parish. With that, I propose the amendment and ask for the appel.

Deputy J.H. Young:

A clarification, please, Sir, if I may?

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. You are going to say that he has got (a) and (b) the wrong way round, are you? Deputy J.H. Young:

Yes, Sir. I was going to say that would the proposer accept that it is actually part (b) that is in the flood risk area and it is part (a) of his proposition that is not.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes. Do you accept that, Deputy ?

Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, I will accept that, Sir. Thanks for the clarification.

The Deputy Bailiff :

You are asking, Deputy , for the Assembly to consider (a) and (b) separately? Deputy S.M. Wickenden:

Yes, please, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

I remind Members (a) are the 2 fields not in the medium flood risk area and (b) incorporates 2 fields that are in the medium flood risk area. The appel has been called for. Members are asked to return to their seats. Those joining the meeting by the Teams link are asked to cast their votes in the chat channel and I ask the Greffier to open the voting for Members in the Chamber. Members are considering part (a) of the 67th amendment. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that part (a) has been rejected.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

Those voting pour in the Chamber: Senator Moore and the Connétable of St. Mary . In the chat: the Connétable of St. John , Deputy Labey , the Connétable of St. Ouen , Deputy Wickenden, Deputy Martin, Deputy Perchard, the Deputy of St. John , Deputy Higgins, Deputy Truscott, Senator Gorst , Deputy Ash, Deputy Pamplin, the Deputy of Trinity and the Deputy of St. Peter .

The Deputy Bailiff :

I move on to part (b) of the amendment and I ask Members to cast their votes in the chat and I ask the Greffier to open the voting for Members in the Chamber. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce that part (b) has been rejected.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Parts (c) and (d) fall away.

4. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - sixty-eighth amendment: Use of Field T1404, Trinity (P.36/2021 Amd.(68))

The Deputy Bailiff :

We move to the 68th amendment lodged by Senator Pallett and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "the draft Island Plan 2022-25" insert the words "except that - (a) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes at Policy H5 - Provision of affordable homes - "2. Field T1404, Trinity (0.5 hectares/2.7 vergées)"; (b) the draft Island Plan 2022-25 should be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of paragraph (a); and (c) the Draft Bridging Island Plan Proposals Map Part A - Planning Zones should be amended to reflect the adoption of paragraph (a).".

4.1  Senator S.W. Pallett:

Everything we have been deciding is clearly a balance and sometimes we have to make compromises and sometimes it is very difficult to do that. But we do need to strike the right balance between housing need and protecting agricultural fields. I think we have had some difficult debates around that and can I thank Members for their patience with L127, I know it probably strained everybody's patience to some degree but I thought it brought out some interesting debate.

[12:00]

Whether we want to believe it or not we have definitely got difficulties at the current around housing, both social and affordable housing, and it is something that we need to address, whether you want to call it a crisis or not, at the end of the day we need to start addressing it, both through this Island Plan and in the next political term. In regard to this particular field, field T1404 - and there is a photograph of T1404 in the proposition - was included in the 2002 Island Plan as a back-up site. The owner and agent asked if I would present this as an amendment to this current Island Plan or to the draft bridging Island Plan as a suitable location for providing affordable homes, which I was comfortable to do. T1404, it is being offered as an affordable housing site throughout the bridging Island Plan process and has scored highly. T1404 in fact has scored as well as some of the sites that have been recommended for rezoning, some of which we have now refused. I think we are in a position now where if there is a possibility to find sites to reasonably rezone without some of the difficulties that clearly were cited through the debate on L127, then I think we should take those opportunities. The inspectors rejected the site on the basis of poor integration and I am going to go into that a little bit later on, but it is poor integration within the existing built-up zone. But I want to be clear around affordable housing and there has never been any doubt that the homes provided on this site would be to meet affordable housing need. There are no open market homes that have been suggested on this

site, it is a purely affordable housing site. Whether that is for a Parish-led scheme or Andium or privately, all would be assessed through the Gateway or the intention is to do that. The owner is, I think, open to working with any of those groups in regards to providing homes but he is quite keen to push this site forward and provide some of the homes that are desperately needed. You will see from the photos and some of the text within the amendment that the site - I think probably many of you will know where it is - is located immediately behind the new Co-op at Sion which the new Co- op was built on the old J.F.T.U. (Jersey Farmers' Trading Union), that is probably an easier way of putting it. We all remember the old J.F.T.U. site and then a petrol station that was demolished and the new Co-op put in place, which has been, I think, a benefit to those that live locally. It provides them a supermarket, I think, closer to hand than they have had for some considerable time, especially with the subsequent closure of the Co-op at Sion itself. Clearly, any future residents are going to benefit from that site, so they will not have to drive to the shops. I think we all know there are other shops and services in the Sion Village area that are within walking distance of the site. I believe, and I think the owner clearly believes, that it very much is integrated within the village setting. Again, looking at the photo it really marks the start of Sion Village. As you move in obviously you get into the more central part of Sion Village but this is definitely within the environment of the Sion Village and we believe sits well in terms of being integrated into that village setting. Again, if you look at the site itself it is surrounded on 3 sides by developments, some residential, some commercial with the supermarket and some agricultural on the northern side, with a clear open vista to the east. There has been a lot of comment today around ribbon development. This would not be ribbon development, it would be development on the edge of the village but it certainly would not be ribbon development. I take on board some of the comments made about ribbon development. Unfortunately, there have been all sorts of damage done with ribbon development, including in St. Brelade , which I think we, I am afraid, are never going to be able to put right. I think some of the comments made previously by Deputy Morel need to be taken into account when we are looking at sites but no way could you say was ribbon development. The site itself is 2.7 vergées, it is not a particularly big field but it, nevertheless, provides an opportunity to provide 12 to 14 affordable homes on that site, access from the main road. There would need to be some widening of that access. I think those that are opposing this will be seen as a logical extension of the existing built-up area at Sion Village. It is within cycling distance of Island secondary schools, they are located approximately 2,000 metres to the south and D'Auvergne Primary School is also located a similar distance to the south. There is a good road network in and out of town. There are bus stops close by and within walking distance. As much as in the Minister's comments, they did state that there were issues around the level of the bus service in the area. Again, as I think LibertyBus have shown, I think there are opportunities to improve it and that is something that I think can be discussed, I think, should the site be improved. In terms of the site itself, as I have said in the report, it is well screened behind the new Co-op but more planting can be included, I think, around the boundaries to enhance local wildlife but also to screen the site itself. I think importantly, as I have just said, it does not fill in an important open gap or lose what is considered to be an open view. It would be wrong if I did not mention the J.F.U. again and their comments which I think have been extremely useful to Members all the way through these debates. I thank the J.F.U. for providing the comments on all the fields. They have had to consider 30 different sites and that has taken some work on their behalf. I want to thank them for the work that they have done. But in terms of T1404, and I know there has been some debate about the quality of the fields and how you can gauge that, but in terms of the J.F.U.'s rating it is rated as a 3 that is important to agriculture. But before anybody jumps down my throat, I do admit that all fields are important to agriculture but some may be less so than others. This particular field is being used for silage and I think is less of a loss but I am never going to say it is not a loss, clearly if we use a green field it is gone and it is not going to come back. But we have got to balance that, as I have said at the start of my speech, with the need to provide affordable homes. I think the good thing with this particular site is that it is connected to all the main infrastructure, including drains, water supply and there is no risk of flooding on this site, which, again, is important. As I have said at the start previously, I think you

could provide a good mix of homes on this site to meet affordable needs. The owner, as I say, is quite clear that that is what his intentions are, is to provide affordable homes on this site. I just want to go through the Minister's comments before I stop and allow Members to speak; in some ways I hope the Minister can be supportive of this. I know he is minded to reject the amendment but I am hoping he might be able to provide some supportive comments in regards to this particular site. He did say in his comments that: "This site could be considered as a potential alternative, should there be insufficient homes allocated from the Minister's own list of preferred housing sites." We have got ourselves in a position where we need any site that we can, clearly with a balance in mind and, clearly, any site needs to be clear about what that balance means. This one, I think, the balance is right. The Minister and his officers have admitted: "It has previously scored reasonably well when compared to other sites" and has admitted as well within the comments that: "It can be integrated into Sion Village." There is a clear indication from the Minister that it can be part of what is an important part of Island life. Sion Village has grown over the years. I - it is a long time ago now - in the late 1980s lived in Sion and very much enjoyed living in that area. It also performs well against spatial and suitability scoring. He has made some important comments about site line of access, which we believe can be achieved, but also states within his comments that: "There is sufficient foul sewerage system to cope with capacity." At the end of his comments planning inspectors did say that they did not identify it as a potential housing site: "But it was, however, noted that during hearings that this site performs relatively well." I am somewhat at a quandary why they came to that conclusion and I will side more on the Minister's comments around the ability of this site to be integrated into Sion Village. But I hope Members will look at this as an opportunity to add - it is only a small number of homes but, nevertheless, an important number of homes - to, potentially, for affordable housing needs and will look kindly on this amendment. I did not bring any of the amendments forward lightly. I have brought them forward for different reasons but, at the end of the day, with this one I am hopeful that Members will be supportive and I very much look forward to the comments of Members that have got an interest in this particular site and more generally. I think I will stop there and hand it over to Members to speak.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Senator. Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Thank you. Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

1. Connétable A. Jehan of St. John :

The Island Plan had 2 sites at Sion and I had hoped that the Minister would have chosen this one ahead of 1109. In the Minister's comments he talks about a poor bus service; there are 16 buses a day that go through Sion and I can tell him from personal experience that sometimes they are very busy. The site that was put forward by the Minister and we have voted on, 1109, is just across the road and we are going to put approximately 40 units there. The site the Minister put forward had a much higher environmental impact but yet it was recommended by the department. The site the Minister put forward was judged as category 2 by the J.F.U. and this is judged as category 3. The site the Minister put forward was on the other side of the road to the shop that the proposer has spoken about, the other side of a busy main road and, therefore, treatments will be required for his favoured sites but you will be able to walk to the shop without crossing the road from this site.

[12:15]

The site across the road is probably twice the size of the one we are considering, yet in the comments from the Minister it is described to be a good size and shape. That is part of the reason the Minister is saying not to support the field, whereas the one across the road was twice the size and, equally, a good shape for agriculture. If 1109 is deemed suitable for housing, something we have voted on and approved, then I believe 1404 should also be seen as suitable for affordable homes. Let us not forget that this Island Plan is about people and families. We are elected to make decisions and here is an opportunity for a site to be rezoned to help. I consider this site to be far more suited to affordable homes than 1109, so I will be supporting the amendment.

2. Deputy S.M. Ahier of St. Helier :

Just a question for the proposer, if he might enlighten us as to how one would access field 1403, which is to the east of the field that has been designated. I notice on Google Maps there are a number of tractor tracks going straight across the field to the entrance of the field 1403. Does he intend to incorporate a road directly across that section of the field? Just to enquire how access would be acquired.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Does any other Member wish to speak on the amendment? If no other Member wishes to speak, then I call upon Senator Pallett to reply.

3. Senator S.W. Pallett:

It is a much shorter debate than I was expecting. Just a couple of comments. I will start with Deputy Ahier ; the access will be maintained to T1403. I cannot answer his question. It is not something that I have brought up with the owner but clearly access is going to have to be maintained into that field and, if necessary, through the current site then so be it. But access, I am sure, there clearly can be a way found to access 1403. In terms of the Constable of St. John , I thank him for his comments. I know that 1109 caused some issues for him but I am thankful that he is supportive of the field that is across the road and, as he said, T1404, in his view, is more suited to affordable homes than 1109 is. I think I will leave it there. There are many other things we need to debate today and I call for the appel.

The Deputy Bailiff :

The appel has been called for and Members are invited to return to their seats. Those joining the meeting via the Teams link are invited to cast their votes in the chat channel and I ask the Greffier to open the voting for Members in the Chamber. If all Members have had the opportunity of casting their votes, then I ask the Greffier to close the voting. I can announce the amendment has been adopted.

Senator S.W. Pallett:

It is Senator Pallett, can I just thank Members for their support?

5. Island Plan 2022-25: Approval (P.36/2021) - sixty-ninth amendment: Use of Fields P655 and P656, St. Peter (P.36/2021 Amd.(69))

The Deputy Bailiff :

Next is the 69th amendment lodged by the Connétable of St. Peter and I ask the Greffier to read the amendment.

The Deputy Greffier of the States:

After the words "the draft Island Plan 2022-25" insert the words "except that - (a) the following should be inserted within the list of sites to be zoned for affordable homes at Policy H5 - Provision of affordable homes - "2. Fields P655 and P656 St. Peter (0.98 hectares/5.45 vergées)"; (b) the draft Island Plan 2022-25 should be further amended in such respects as may be necessary consequent upon the adoption of paragraph (a); and (c) the Draft Bridging Island Plan Proposals Map Part A - Planning Zones should be amended to reflect the adoption of paragraph (a).".

5.1   Connétable R. Vibert of St. Peter :

I am going to start by explaining why in St. Peter we may not have seen the opposition that we have seen in other Parishes. A few months after being elected Constable there was a Parish meeting held at the Parish Hall in regard to the then failed Ville du Manoir development. May people came who had opposed that development and still opposed development in the Parish, however, a large number of young couples and families were also present. They explained how important that development would have been to them and the need for affordable housing. At the end of that evening we took a vote on whether fields 559 and 632 should be included in the next Island Plan and it was well supported. In fact people who had come in opposition voted for that proposition because they had heard first-hand about the urgent need for affordable housing within the Parish. Now, to fields 655 and 656, we have already covered virtually all the reasons why green fields might be selected and fields 655 and 656 are no different. I am, therefore, trying not to repeat what I may have already said

in respect of other fields in the Parish. Fundamental to our draft Island Plan is that the best sites Island-wide should be developed and I believe St. Peter has an important part to play in meeting the housing demand for the Island. I welcome the fact that the Minister recognises this and he has agreed that there are several sites in St. Peter which because they are contiguous with the existing village means they are sensible for affordable housing development. I refer specifically to the fields P632, P558 and P559 that have already been approved. These 2 fields are rated 2 by the Jersey Farmers' Union. The owner has made them available to a farmer, I believe rent free, but for some years the farmer has not used them because he no longer considers them suitable for either dairy farming or agriculture. I am proposing this site, which I feel can also contribute to the overall provision of affordable housing without impacting negatively on St. Peter 's village. Indeed, the additional housing it can create will help enhance the village community and provides opportunities to deliver a wider range of housing and opportunities for Islanders. The Minister's view and the inspectors was that fields 655 and 656 were suitable sites should other proposed sites fall from the plan, which indeed has happened. I do hope that he now feels he is able to support these sites. I can understand those Parishes, in particular St. Helier and St. Saviour , where they have already made their contribution over the years to the Island-wide need for housing and wish to retain their green spaces. Therefore, I have supported all the amendments removing sites from those Parishes. I have also made no secret that I do not believe that the traditional Parish type development is appropriate for delivering today's housing. While I wish to see some parishioners benefit from development in the Parish we have an Island-wide need and the St. Peter 's development, I stress, are to meet that Island-wide need for first- time buyer and affordable housing. The Minister has recognised that the Housing Gateway is the fairest means of allocating the housing within the new developments and I support this view, and I hope that we would be able to welcome those from other Parishes who have not been fortunate enough to have developments close to home. Having several sites presented together therefore allows a Parish to consider in consultation with planning officers which sites are best placed to deliver the various types of housing and tenures. This may not necessarily be with each site delivering 45 per cent rental and 55 per cent first-time buyer, as proposed in the draft plan. But the percentages can be met across the overall development site and this is why these 2 fields are so important and I would ask Members to support them being rezoned. We have also considered, and I was keen on some rightsizing development, which the addition of these fields would have allowed. However, I think this may now have fallen away, as there will be a great need for affordable housing, given that we have now only approved roughly 340 of the 600 affordable housing sites that we had aimed for.

[12:30]

All Members will know that as important as building homes is we must ensure that we build them in such a way as to foster good communities and good strategic place-making. I have been engaging with Andium to discuss how the sites in the village could be developed with community cohesion and sensitive place-making at the very forefront. Andium Homes has met with all the landowners involved and has developed an outlined village development plan which sees the various sites used for their identified types of housing. The benefit of the Parish working with Andium is that they are a single non-profit developer working across a number of sites in St. Peter to produce all the intended Island Plan outcomes. I say again that the overall site is intended that it will meet the 45 per cent rental and 55 per cent first-time buyer tenure. Should fields 655 and 656 be approved, alongside the sites already agreed, the Parish and Andium will be looking to sit down with planning officers to look at the overarching village development plan, with a view to advancing the production of the necessary development briefs. As discussions have already taken place, I hope that we could enter into the planning process very soon after the end of this debate. We are aware that the infrastructure in the area will require upgrading and it makes sense that these fields are developed at the same time, so that they can be included in that infrastructure development. This would save additional costs should they be developed at a later date. For the sake of transparency, I should say that the owner of fields 655 and 656 has generously offered to transfer 2 adjacent fields to the Parish if planning permission

is granted. This was done after the plots were submitted into the Island Plan and they would have been submitted, irrespective of this offer and since they were not submitted by the Parish had no effect, nevertheless, I thought I should point this out. It would be our intention to retain these fields which the owner no longer needs in agriculture. I do hope that Members feel they can support what are considered to be one of the most exciting housing developments to take place in St. Peter , with a range of housing that meets all needs across the various sites, including this one. Unlike our previous developments in the 1970s we aim to meet the Island's need, rather than just considering the individual needs of the Parish. Fields 655 and 656 form an integral part of that plan. I know that provided Andium can reach agreement with the landowners we will have a scheme that both the Parish and the Island can be proud of. At this point I would just note, as Deputy Ward has mentioned it in respect of a previous site, yes, I have had discussions with the primary school and Education and there are no issues should these developments take place with the capacity of St. Peter 's Primary School. I make the amendment and look forward to Members' comments.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Point of clarification, Sir.

The Deputy Bailiff :

There is a point of clarification. Will you accept a point of clarification, Connétable ? The Connétable of St. Peter :

Yes, Sir.

Deputy R.J. Ward :

Sir, I believe Deputy Morel was there first.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Yes, all right. All right, Deputy Morel .

Deputy K.F. Morel :

Yes, if the Connétable could clarify with regard to 626 and 627. I am just a bit confused because in his speech he said they would be retained in agriculture, despite being transferred over to the Parish. But in the maps here it says community use; if he could clarify because they are not the same thing.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

There is no decision for them to be in community use. I think that perhaps, a bit like the old west show, in the event that the Parish needed them some years in advance, they might make an arrangement with the farmer that they are available. But certainly my view is, and it is something between the Parish and the owner, we are entirely free to do what we would like with them, as far as he is concerned. But in my view they should be retained in agriculture.

Deputy K.F. Morel : Thank you, Sir. Deputy R.J. Ward :

Just a point of clarification from the Constable's speech, can I just confirm what 655 and 656 are going to be used for? Because in the report it does say housing for the over-60s to downsize but in your speech you suggested that perhaps that will not happen. A point of clarity as to what will be built there.

The Connétable of St. Peter :

What we are looking for in all cases is in fact first-time buyer accommodation. I mentioned rightsizing because in the overall development across all the fields we would have liked to have included some of that and had 600 affordable homes been approved throughout the Island, then we would have hoped there might have been a possibility to have some more rightsizing homes, as the Parish already has, and these would not have been Parish rightsizing homes, they would have been available for anyone in the Island. But we would have liked to have seen a few more rightsizing homes, which could have allowed people to free up other properties in the Island. I do not feel that now is going to be a possibility because we are down to 340 sites that have been approved out of the 600. That is why I was talking about rightsizing but I do not believe that we will be able to ask Planning if we could have substituted some affordable homes for rightsizing homes because I simply do not think we have approved enough homes. Is that sufficient?

Deputy R.J. Ward : Yes, thank you.

The Deputy Bailiff :

Thank you, Connétable . Is the amendment seconded? [Seconded] Does any Member wish to speak on the amendment?

1. Deputy R.J. Ward :

It is interesting and I think I should write down what I am about to say because I am probably going to say it on just about every single green field or every field that comes up at the moment. It is very interesting that suddenly Members of the Assembly can find affordable housing and space and they are affordable and the affordability of building affordable housing is not in question. Because a number of Members voted against the extension of affordable housing on the waterfront site because suddenly that had become an unviable option when you build affordable housing. What I would like to hear from speakers and proposers is how they are certain that they can now build these affordable homes, when before the opportunity to have many, many affordable homes have been lost. They will go into the open market and be unaffordable for people, thus increasing the pressure on other areas to build on green sites, thus increasing the pressure to extend the sizes of Parishes and their homes and the pressure on schools. It is a strange sort of issue that I have with this but one of consistency. When we come to talk about affordable homes on States-owned sites I hope, again, that we will be getting support for that later on in these debates because of the obvious need and the sudden ability to find sites that are affordable housing, which has been in many ways opposed in this Assembly many, many times for economic reasons. Because developers do not like it and they need to make their money but suddenly these are going to be affordable. I wonder - and this is my concern - that that term maybe being used is a bit of a smoke screen for development, just for development and there is no certainty here. This warning that is in the back of my mind, and why I have not agreed to many of these green field sites before we know about how many unoccupied homes there are on this Island, before we have an agreement to not build unaffordable homes on States-owned land, before we know our actual population size, before we know our population policy and what is going to happen, we go into these sites then they will not come back. Not only will they not come back but eventually they will end up in the hands of developers to make large amounts of money, with the promise to young people they would have affordable homes and somebody mentioned - I cannot remember the figure - I think it was £450,000 as an affordable first-time buyer home. Really? That is not affordable to my daughter, who is working and earning and her partner; that is not affordable to many, many young people who will not get a mortgage or anything like that and will not get anywhere near the deposit for that. I think this whole debate around affordability has lost its way down rabbit hole after rabbit hole of inconstancy and interest, which we are not seeing clearly here. I have consistently not supported green field sites and we have done so because we do need to protect