Select a region
Today, the mammoth Bridging Island Plan debate begins.
Here, Express offers a handy guide on what’s likely to go through without too much contention, and what is probably going to keenly argued over.
The Environment Minister rejects an amendment by Senator Lyndon Farnham to designate 900 km around Jersey as a Marine National Park. No one is against greater protection for Jersey’s bountiful and varied marine environment but, as always, the devil is in the detail.
Pictured: The creation of a Marine National Park kicks off the Bridging Island Plan debate. Credit: James Bowden.
If created under the Bridging Island Plan, a Marine National Park would be a planning designation, but the laws governing what can be caught and where come under fisheries legislation, which in turn is intrinsically linked to all sorts of international laws and treaties, not least the post-Brexit UK-EU trade agreement.
This debate is likely pitch principle versus detail so could go either way. Deputy Young has attempted to find a compromise by committing to a ‘marine spatial plan’ - which will include fishing, energy policy, carbon sequestration and all other relevant bits - by 2025.
Senator Farnham accepts that, but still wants the minister to commit to create a ‘National Marine Park’ within the same timeframe.
Senator Kristina Moore has lodged an amendment calling for field MY966, which is next to the St. Peter’s Valley quarry and ‘safeguarded’ for mineral extraction, to be removed from the plan.
With the St Mary field close to St. Peter and St. Lawrence, the former St. Peter Deputy is supported by a number of parish representatives, along with hundreds of islanders, many of whom lodged their objections during the BIP’s consultation period.
The Environment Minister argues that the continued production of aggregates at La Gigoulande Quarry is required to meet the island’s estimated needs for the next ten years or more.
That cuts little slack with objectors, who point out that the environmental damage would be significant. This should be one of the significant battles of the debate, setting a large productive field along a quiet rural lane against the hard fact that Jersey is running out of natural resources to feed its appetite for growth.
A similar battle will take place over the future of sand extraction in Jersey. Initially, the Environment Minister wanted to see the quarry in St. Ouen’s Bay closed but the independent inspectors reviewing the BIP disagreed, concluding that a relatively small triangle of land to the north-east of the site should be utilised.
Pictured: The future of sand quarrying in Jersey is likely to be hotly debated.
Environmental campaigners, including the National Trust, want to see quarrying stopped; Deputy Young says that the island is not yet ready to import sand cost-effectively, so he is willing to add a few more years on to the life of the quarry, on condition that everyone agrees that it is properly restored afterwards.
The owner and the Government, however, don’t appear to be anywhere close on agreeing what that restoration might look like.
The Minister has proposed a number of fields in Five Oaks for houses; residents and their political representatives say no, citing over-development in the area, traffic congestion and the fact that local schools and other community facilities are already bursting at the seams.
Deputy Young says he is committed to develop a ‘masterplan’ for Five Oaks, which ‘might’ include more cycle lands and open areas.
That is likely to cut little slack with St. Saviour politicians, who argue that the parish already has too many houses and too few green spaces.
Two fields in particular are likely to be keenly fought over. Lining Rue de la Croute, which runs off the top end of Hydrangea Avenue, O622 and O623 are both farmed, one for potatoes and the other for dairy.
The Minister has already agreed to withdraw three fields in St. Helier on the basis that they are crucial to the dairy industry so he will have to present a strong argument to convince Members that these fields are any different.
The outgoing Constable of the parish, however, is supportive of homes being built on them; nearby residents are not, arguing that they have been rejected for development multiple times in the past.
Last week, parishioners successfully forced a parish assembly and overwhelmingly backed a proposal urging the Constable to resist development on any field in the parish, even though he has put one forward himself.
From one field proposed by the minister last year, it jumped into double figures when States Members had another chance to make amendments to the plan.
After a number of withdrawals, this has now fallen to a handful but each one will still be fought over, and it remains to be seen if the Constable will step back from his own proposal to build on a field close to Grouville Marsh.
Some fields have been proposed by backbenchers for development, which are unlikely to be supported by enough Members to make them stick.
These include a field by Glencoe in St. Lawrence, proposed by Senator Steve Pallett, a field in St. Mary put forward by the Constable (who has also put forward one supported by the Minister) and a field in St. Martin proposed by Deputy Steve Luce for an indoor cricket hall.
Senator Kristina Moore has lodged an amendment calling for a policy that allows 50% of a glasshouse site to be developed for affordable housing and the other half returned to agriculture or community use.
Pictured: Whether glasshouses should be developed on is likely to be a subject of significant debate.
The Minister objects, arguing that the proposal is inappropriate because it bypasses the site selection process for affordable homes already undertaken.
The updated ‘Plan A’ affordable housing list
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.