States must reclaim ability to develop

After so many false dawns it is more ‘We’ll believe it when we see it’ than excitement or concern at imminent change.

After decades of fruitless effort Leale’s Yard has become a synonym for stagnation.

Why should this development framework be any different than the outline planning brief and three approved plans of the past 20 years?

It remains a very difficult site to develop. Parts of it are below the high water level and the risk of sea flooding is high.

Surface drainage is made harder by the fact that much of the reclaimed land is 1-2m lower than the surrounding areas.

It will take a major engineering project by the States to protect not only Leale’s Yard but the whole of the Bridge interior.

Any developer taking on that challenge will need deep pockets and boundless optimism.

The Development & Planning Authority’s solution is to share out the risk by appointing a master developer.

This lead developer will co-ordinate design and delivery of the project but not get involved in the actual building.

That responsibility will be licensed or sold to ‘parcel’ developers – builders who will work to the central design but focus on part of the site.

This allows for both a phased build and distributes the financial risk.

The attraction is clear. Leale’s Yard has stood empty and unloved since the 1990s because it is too much for one developer to take on.

Much work remains to be done. The implications of a shared retail and residential project of this scale are huge. It has to be developed alongside the Bridge itself, allowing a rundown area to be revitalised.

Factor in the flood defences and that means a significant public-private partnership. Those who have worked with the States in the past will be wary of its flexibility, speed of approach and tendency to get bound up by red tape and political in-fighting.

If there is to be renewed hope that Leale’s Yard will rise from the ashes, the States needs to show it too can change.