Fielding questions

HOW precious or otherwise are Guernsey’s agricultural fields?

Strangely, that seems likely to be one of the defining questions set to characterise the nature of this States Assembly. We may not have much in the way of party politics in the States, but it does seem destined to split into the ‘Green fields are precious faction’ and the ‘Yes but not that precious faction’.

The reason this strikes me as so strange is because in all the other Assemblies I’ve ever served in, it was an absolute given. It really wasn’t a matter of passionate political debate. There were no battle lines drawn around it. There was simply an overwhelming consensus that agricultural fields were close to being sacrosanct.

They would only ever be developed for some overriding issue of ‘national’ strategic importance. And even then only if it could be demonstrated, beyond reasonable doubt, that no alternative sites existed.

So it is passing odd that today, with Guernsey more heavily populated/developed than ever before, there seems to be an attitude emerging that fields are no longer as important as they used to be.

Let me pin my colours to the mast. I care deeply about Guernsey’s green fields. And not just as a means to allow a small number of agricultural businesses to make a living. Indeed, in many ways it is the other way around.

The real reason why we need to support our farmers is that they are the custodians of our precious countryside. It’s not because of their economic contribution to Guernsey. Nor because we like them – although they are mainly a pleasant bunch. It may be partly the iconic Guernsey cow and the excellent product it provides. But mainly it is all about the preservation of our countryside.

Guernsey’s field pattern is almost unique and steeped in ancient history. It may not be ideal for ergonomic factory farming, being made up of a patchwork of small fields, separated by ancient earth banks, or sometimes granite walls, but it is genuinely charming.

What do fields really contribute to life in Guernsey? So much.

Firstly, they are crucial for nature and biodiversity.

In particular, all those field edges and boundaries are superhighways for wildlife, connecting areas of habitat which would otherwise be too isolated to maintain populations of animals or insects.

Secondly, they are crucial for our quality of life and mental health. Guernsey is not a city state and as far as I know most of the population has no desire to live in one. Open space and aesthetic landscapes are absolutely crucial to our quality of life. Unlike those living in cities elsewhere, we can’t simply jump into our cars or onto a train and enjoy a day in the country. When it comes to green vistas, what we have is all we get and every view lost diminishes us.

Thirdly, maintaining our countryside is important for our reduced but still important tourism industry. Talk to visitors and quite often their comments are along the lines of ‘Nice island, lovely beaches, friendly people, but it’s a lot more built up than I was expecting’.

Fourthly, I do think it is crucial to the very nature (and soul, if that’s not too pretentious) of Guernsey that we retain a dairy farming industry with our own iconic cows grazing in the fields. But for the first three reasons set out above, it is not just about a formula of calculating how much pasture our cattle need and deciding the rest of our fields are surplus to requirements.

So far so obvious, but why am I raising this now?

Simply because I am genuinely concerned that there may be a philosophy developing at the top of our government that fields are basically just another asset to be used. Just another commodity to be given a financial value and viewed accordingly.

Why do I say that? Well, first there was the quite appalling suggestion that the series of important agricultural fields around the Castel Hospital should be used to build upmarket homes. The argument went that by doing that as a joint venture with a developer the taxpayer could be quids in. I don’t doubt it. Any fool can turn a profit if allowed to build houses on farmland. But what a precedent!

After the initial shock of the ‘big reveal’ of those plans by Deputy Mahoney in the Guernsey Press, things seemed to go very quiet on that front for a while. I thought – perhaps naively – that the public backlash had brought about a rethink.

Then along came plans to build new staff accommodation on a truly charming valley field between Duchess of Kent House and the PEH.

Completely misguided justifications were put forward about the grading of the land. (For the record, Guernsey’s land grading system relates to its suitability for arable crop production, not pasture). All without any real evidence of the sort of completely exhaustive search for alternatives which must be an absolute prerequisite to the loss of any field.

It all brings to mind two famous quotes from Oscar Wilde.

The first is ‘these people know the price of everything and the value of nothing’. The second [to paraphrase] is ‘To suggest losing one field is unfortunate, but to suggest losing two is careless’.

That is the real point here. I genuinely worry that such a cavalier attitude towards building on agricultural fields could well become addictive. If the States treat them as having diminished importance, then it is not just fields next to the PEH and Castel Hospital that will be in danger.

Pretty soon there will be a third suggestion to build on a field and then a fourth.

That is one of the main reasons why I was happy to sign Deputy Falla’s requete.

Of course I want to save one of the prettiest fields imaginable, but I also want to stop the rot setting in. As I say, it will be a defining issue for this Assembly and it will be fascinating to see where the majority lies. I genuinely don’t know.