Taking the field

IT HAS been a couple of months since I wrote a piece that covered a number of different areas.

That article caused a great deal of discussion – which is good – because whatever opinions everyone may have, we are living through some difficult times, and sometimes difficult decisions need to be made. Sometimes, perhaps frequently in fact, those decisions can be unpopular.

But here’s the rub, often they are only unpopular among certain limited membership groups – groups that care only about their own little piece of interest, and sometimes self-interest. Without going too Star Trek on you – sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

As an island we are facing a housing crisis that is affecting every single one of us, regardless of whether we are homeowners or renters. I touched briefly in my previous article about the private housing market and the sites at the Castel Hospital and King Edward VII, but today, since others have brought it into the news, I want to spotlight the dire situation we are facing with key worker accommodation. By key worker, I am talking about the broad definition including nurses, doctors, teachers, police officers… the list goes on.

A few months ago I noted that I was looking into the possibility of building up to 150 one-bedroom apartments in the vicinity of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital.

There are some States members that oppose this piece of work and have already noted that they will not support it, and indeed are actively looking to stop it.

The well-rehearsed argument runs down two tracks.

Firstly that any building on any green land is simply wrong and must be stopped (unless it’s for social housing apparently); and secondly that the proposed site isn’t the best place. I understand the first, although it bears pointing out that every one of you reading this lives in a house that sits on a site that was once a green field. Times change, and we must move with them. The second dead-end is that the suggested site isn’t the best option – but more on that shortly.

So let’s talk facts as the naysayers are throwing some misinformation out there. The field in question sits within the hospital grounds next to Vauquiedor/Duchess of Kent House. You will hear people saying this is ‘prime agricultural land’ – but while that fits their narrative, it is not true. You will also hear them throwing around the phrase ‘Agricultural Priority Area’, but that has nothing to do with the quality of land.

According to the Agriculture Development Advisory Service, the small piece of land is currently listed as grade 3b agricultural land. The definition of 3b is ‘moderate quality’ with ‘moderate to severe limitation as to its use for agriculture’. Yet, in social media-land, those who seek to stop this process are now noting this small field as ‘iconic’ – I am not making this up.

This is land that is so good that the States of Guernsey grows grass on it. The total area of the field is just under seven vergees, so let’s add some context here. The current listed agricultural land in Guernsey is somewhere north of approximately 24,000 vergees. These seven vergees represent 0.029% of the total – to help solve one of the biggest problems Guernsey currently faces. For my money, this is a sacrifice I would make.

There will be some for whom this is too big an ask, but I’ll wager most of them already have a home or aren’t living in unsuitable accommodation.

Time for another fact. For a number of years, the States has had a policy (it’s called GP15 for anyone that wants to look it up) whereby anyone, I mean anyone, who owns agricultural land bordering their garden can apply to have that land added to their garden so that it no is longer included as agricultural land.

For the period 2015-2020, a total of 307 vergees of agricultural land has been lost to this policy. So that people can enjoy a bigger garden. That’s 44 times the amount of land I am talking about. I think it’s fair to ask, what island problems did the loss of those 307 vergees solve? What benefit did the island reap? None, nil, nada.

A great many individual households benefited, that isn’t in question. So, on the one hand (and very quietly) the States allow the loss of agricultural land, yet on the other, some deputies come over all indignant when a 0.029% reduction is suggested. 307 vergees for personal benefit, OK, but seven vergees for huge benefits to the community – red flags and sirens. Hypocrisy of the highest order… is it any wonder that the public look to the States and shake their heads? I’m in the States, and I’m shaking mine.

I’ll leave here a quote from Hansard from the debate last year re. GP15 from one of the deputies who has come over all upset over this field: ‘The 307.69 vergees that has been lost under this policy probably does not affect agriculture significantly…’, and with this I actually agree.

But if 307 vergees doesn’t affect agriculture then, well, you get the rest of the argument.

Working with the Committee for Health & Social Care, options for 150 one-bedroom units along the lines of the existing key worker accommodation within the PEH grounds are being progressed – of course this can be tweaked to include two-bedroom units, as we know that not everyone wants or needs a single bedroom.

But that is detail, as will be the design, which will take into account the surroundings.

Since we are dealing in facts – here’s another, as we recover from Covid and aim to meet our Government Work Plan objectives, the ability to adequately staff services across health and social care will require a range of accommodation options to attract the best staff. If we are unable to do this, we will experience challenges with delivering ‘business as usual’ and this would see operations being postponed/delayed if we cannot safely staff key services.

One of the reasons most quoted for staff leaving or indeed not joining in the first place is the cost of, or total lack of, suitable accommodation. This single project will solve a huge issue facing our health services. In one go.

A direct and very substantial consequence of this will be the release of 100-plus rental units in the private sector, turning down the temperature on an overheated rental market.

Returning to the argument that this small field of moderate-grade land, with a moderate to severe limitation as to its use, that represents 1/44th of the agricultural land lost so that people can enjoy a bigger garden – the argument is that the site currently occupied by Vauquiedor House should be used. Not the building – which would have to be demolished at great expense – but the site on which it sits. This building is not ideal, but it is fit for purpose and States Property Services have stated this in a report to Health & Social Care and Policy & Resources.

HSC has accepted this report, a point made by its president, Deputy Brouard, in the past few days. Of course it also houses 120 staff, and some service users would have to be moved and while there is a plan already in place to move those occupying the site, it relies on a future build that has not yet been commenced, and completion will be a minimum of two years away.

Before I finish, I want to be clear – the majority of both committees are wanting to develop these proposals and have agreed to explore them further with the Planning Service.

So, I call on my fellow deputies to either support the concept of forgoing a small piece of moderate grade land to enable the building of key worker accommodation or, in the alternate, explain to our health care professionals why this field is more important than their accommodation; to justify to those whose operations have been cancelled why this piece of grass is of greater value than their health; or to enlighten those paying sky-high rents why 100-plus private sector units won’t be released back into the market because they won’t allow new key worker accommodation to be built on this site.

Action is needed now. This is an opportunity to actually do something. So, a call to those paid out of the public purse, give us your support and let’s get on with this as an Assembly, or have the courage to go on public record and explain why you won’t.

n Deputy Mahoney has asked us to make clear that this article is submitted by himself as a deputy – not specifically related to his role as lead politician on property within the Policy & Resources Committee.