Guernsey Press

States blocks move to protect green fields from development

THIS year’s debate on how the States should prioritise its work got going – following a brief introductory speech by Policy & Resources vice-president Heidi Soulsby – with a two-hour discussion about preventing development on agricultural fields.

Published
Deputy David De Lisle. (Picture by Sidney Prosser, 30975733)

The debate was the first of 11 which are expected to focus on amendments placed by individual States members – principally on the subjects of housing and cannabis.

This is to be followed by a general debate on P&R’s suggested list of priorities, after which all the government committees should be able to develop clear timetables for what work they need to do and when.

However, the proscriptive nature of Deputy David De Lisle’s amendment, to ‘ensure that all actions relating to housing strictly protect green agricultural fields from development and direct future development onto brown field sites’, caused sufficient concern among States members that the debate very nearly did not happen.

Deputy Soulsby moved that it went further than the original proposition it was seeking to amend and Bailiff Richard McMahon agreed that assertion was sufficiently valid to be voted upon.

There was a called vote which he declared carried – meaning the amendment would fall away.

However, Deputy Lester Queripel subsequently asked for a recorded vote, which showed that 17 had supported the call to end debate and 17 were against, with two abstentions. That gave the Bailiff a deciding vote and, keeping to tradition, he voted in favour of the status quo and debate was able to proceed.

Several of the deputies who had wanted the debate not to happen at all then spoke in the ensuing debate, including Deputy Bob Murray, who expressed his impatience at those who were using up valuable time.

‘We have procedures and we have policies and I’m not going to support those who think that it was very noble of the proposer and seconder [Deputy John Gollop] to bring this to this debate, because it was the wrong time,’ he said.

‘We have got to have some discipline in this place, otherwise we’re going to get nothing done.’

Other deputies had expressed more sympathy with Deputy De Lisle, including Housing Action Group president Deputy Peter Roffey. He was, however, of the same mind that it was the wrong way to go about preventing development of green fields.

‘On sentiment, I completely agree with you but I think it would leave contradictory resolutions in place,’ he said.

He also argued that policy decisions should be made on the back of policy letters, while the GWP meeting was intended as a debate on the prioritisation of resources.

Chief minister Peter Ferbrache, like Deputy Roffey, had voted for debate to go ahead. However, he said the amendment would have the effect of placing a straitjacket on developments where there was ‘an absolute need to build on a green field’ and so he would vote against it.

But he criticised other members for questioning Deputy De Lisle’s attempt to insert the proposition into the GWP. He said he was disappointed, but not surprised, to hear members wanting to ‘stick to the rules’.

He invited them to communicate those concerns to islanders who were living with their parents in their thirties, or struggling to save for a deposit, and urged members to be more ‘fleet of foot’ in dealing with the housing crisis.