Seeking more room to develop? Look outward!

Maybe that’s what’s behind the proposal by the Planning Minister to amend the current provisions of the Island Plan and rezone private land for building. Of course, one has to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt over his accommodating motives, but his proposals would earmark not one, but two sites in the already over developed parish of St Clement.

The Minister might think he’s choosing well because historically, that small parish has demonstrated its ability to absorb so much of St Helier’s overspill. The Le Squez area with its tower blocks and various incarnations of upgrades has been used as a barometer of social re-homing and regeneration. Despite the constant pressure on its infrastructure, St Clement has coped admirably with the influx.

Nor has the urban sprawl been restricted to States’ projects. Gardens have been ‘grabbed’ in an unprecedented manner, an issue campaigned against by the Chief Minister, when a St Clement Deputy. Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts of its fully functioning honorary police unit and highly motivated volunteer Community Support network the parish has bolstered what the State can’t supply and kept everyone’s head above water. So why not squeeze in a drop more?

The reason why not, is that in order to instil some form of strategy into a historically peace-meal mess of island development, which owed more to patronage and vanity, the States commissioned an Island Plan which involved much consultation, cost a shed full of money and which we, as consenting islanders, paid for.

It might be uncharitable to point out that the rezoning idea emerged just as the States broke up for their holidays, though we’re assured that there will indeed be plenty of time for the Chamber and interested parties to review and debate the proposals. Yet they have a curious whiff of ‘back of a ciggy packet’ logic. Indeed, from what we understand, those who actually own the sites were surprised to learn of the plans – and though, they’ll inevitably be interested in concepts and profit margins, there’s a definite hint of politicking in the air.

The issue of ‘affordable housing’ is as long running as it is misunderstood and manipulated. Clearly, there are not enough houses for everyone, nor is there a supply of dwellings that people feel they want to occupy.

But the answer isn’t just to tear up more areas of agricultural land and spew concrete all over the place. The shroud-waving construction industry might be pleased, but the driver has to focus on converting what is already available to affordable before you unleash the diggers – and you don’t have to look at too many property pages of the JEP to see just how much is on offer.

At the same time, more affordable homes, mean more affordable cars and more affordable children. The current infrastructure just will not support building regardless, and the principal element lacking in the rush to build, is the plan for how that infrastructure – roads, drains, rubbish collection, schools, will cope.

So, Goose Green floods whenever it rains, Samares Marsh reverts to what the map says it is and traffic tails back in single-line ribbons from Georgetown to Grouville.

Now, some canny local politicians have got wise to this. Those who don’t actually want development spoiling their rural idylls, or would be reluctant to raise their peppercorn parish rates, ruefully shed crocodile tears about how mean it is that the Sates have yet to connect their parish to 20th century sewerage systems, insist that traffic only proceeds through their patch at walking pace, lament their infrequent Liberty Bus service and that Digital Jersey won’t be buzzing their local connections till mid-century. Of course they don’t want to paint their parishes in an attractive light for developers. They simply don’t want people to go and live there, thank you.

It comes down to two main issues: one political, the other a matter of definition. On the political level, are we right to be wary of what has the hallmarks of another example of Ministerial arrogance, arbitrarily picking apart a strategy without due consideration for the democratic process? Has the Executive become used to too much power in one pair of hands, as has surfaced before in relation to controversial planning decisions involving Portlet and Plemont? The other relates to how describe affordable.

All properties are affordable for some pockets – the estate agent business is living proof. The distinction lies between affordable and aspirational. Whether in the private or social sector, everyone wants enough room to live and bring up their family. Paying through the nose for shoe-boxes is unacceptable, and rather than just breaking ground for more, the States should intervene to regulate rents and – if need be, the market itself to inject sanity before we’re all concreted over with expensive development which nobody can afford to occupy. We are currently suffering from low value but high cost, and privatising profits while socialising costs in a sure route to disaster.

So, before any more developments are approved – be they high profile sarcophagi for a declining finance industry or charm-free boxes on what was agricultural soil of former glass houses, let’s look at the alternatives. We’re constructing a huge inert island into the sea, for heavens’ sake – surely it’s not beyond the wit of local enterprise to investigate making use of that! There’s another saying – ‘when you’re in a hole- keep digging’. But those with their political fingers on the planning button should beware. Once you’ve dug yourself below head height, nobody cares how deep you sink. But please don’t take any more down with you.