Fiction and Fact in Property Development

The Crown and Anchor had seats and tables at the front, looking across to where the River Fether ran out into the sea, but there was also an overgrown garden at the back, which Ted Crisp kept saying he was going to get tidied up and open for customers. But all that seemed to happen was that the garden, like his beard and his hair, just got more matted and messy. 'Hardly worth doing,' he said to Carole and Jude, as they looked through the window at the patch that Monday evening. 'Soon be next door to a building site, anyway.'

'What do you mean by that?' asked Carole. The landlord pointed to the crumbling wall of a long, low structure on the other side of the pub garden. 'Old milk depot, that was. Used to be full of tankers and floats. Been empty for five years now. Soon be a nice shooshed-up residential estate, though.' 'Really?' 'Yes, I've seen the plans. Go on, have a guess how many houses they're going to fit on to that site.' 'Eight?' 

He gave a derisory laugh. If only. The answer is twenty-four.' "Twenty-four? On that space? Is there a lot of land the other side of the  depot?' asked Carole. 'No. What you see is what you get. Within the perimeter of that existing  building they are going to fit twenty-four residences. Starter homes, I  think they call them. Two bedrooms and a pocket handkerchief of garden  each.'

'Garages?' 'No. Won't be room for that.' 'So where are they going to park?' Carole instinctively  asked  the question  any  local  would  ask. Tethering High Street's already jammed  solid. If High Tor didn't have a garage, I don't know what I'd do.' 'This is quite funny, actually,' said Ted, as he led them gloomily back across to the bar. 'Or at least it would be funny, if it weren't so bloody  insane.'

'Right. OK, well, what I'm about to tell you is government policy - if  that's not a contradiction in terms. You've probably heard there's a housing shortage in the south-east?' 'Yes' 'So, the various possible solutions to that are: build new towns; extend the outskirts of existing towns and villages; start nibbling away at the Green Belt. But no. What the government, in its wisdom, has decided to do is not extend the area of existing housing, but to develop brown-field sites.' 'Like the old milk depot?' 'Exactly, Carole. And on these sites they want a greater density of housing.' 'More people living per square metre?' 'That's the idea, yes. But, of course, if you're going to do that, then you've got to keep the footprint of each house pretty damned small. No room for fripperies like garages.'

Carole,  the  proud  Renault-owner  insisted, 'where are the new residents supposed to put their cars?' Ted Crisp grinned sardonically. 'Ah, now this is the clever bit. This is where the government suddenly does  a little nod to the green lobby.' He pronounced his next words as though imparting the secret of life. 'Apparently, the fact that the new residents have nowhere to park will encourage them to make greater use of public
transport!'

'But public transport round here's dreadful,' Jude objected. 'Yes,' Ted agreed. "That is the small miscalculation the government has made. You'd think they'd realize they'd got the whole thing arse-about-face. The sensible plan, a naive person might imagine, would be first to get good public transport, then build houses without garages to attract people without cars. But no, that's not the way this government does things.' He ran an exasperated hand through his beard. 'Don't get me started on this government.'  'Still,' he  went on savagely,  'all be good news for the developers, won't it? They'll get a very cushy ride indeed - as ever. Nothing like a nice housing boom to boost the building trade, is there? Lots of profit for the developers, and the builders, and the decorators, and the plumbers, and the electricians, and their attendant army of local planners, and solicitors, and accountants and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all."

- The Hanging in the Hotel, Simon Brett, 2004

This is a work of fiction, a very good detective story, with lots of humour and twists and turns - Simon Brett is a master of his craft.

But it was only about a year ago that Senator Freddie Cohen as Minister for Planning was saying that new housing - particular flats in St Helier - did not need car parking space, because that would encourage people not to own cars, and use public transport instead. Had Freddie been reading "The Hanging in the Hotel"? Or is it just that - like the Government in this book, Freddie wanted to make "a little nod to the green lobby".

As regards any lack of parking for flats out in the country, it is a non-starter. Perhaps Freddie should take the bus on a few occasions from St John to St Helier, especially at night or at weekends to see how deficient the service is for residents out of St Helier.

I notice that with the recent development at St Lawrence that this applied, even though there is a "shared public amenity car park area", the parking per house is not 100%. As the report noted:

The objectors remain concerned that only 57% of the proposed homes have garages and this issue was raised at the recent Public Hearing. In my report on the previous application, I commented that "ideally, applicants should aim to provide a garage for every family home". However, it is important to recognise that the provision of garages is not a requirement of the development brief, as long as suitable storage sheds are provided for bicycles and other domestic paraphernalia.

It reminds me of lifeboats and the Titanic! The bus service past St Lawrence is not quite as bad as that to and from St Johns, although it is much barer on a Sunday, and the nearby shops are hardly within walking distance so that unless you want a wheelbarrow, for a family with children, and a weekly shop, a car is needed more than in St Helier. As the Simon Brett story has it absolutely accurately - "And on these sites they want a greater density of housing. More people living per square metre? But, of course, if you're going to do that, then you've got to keep the footprint of each house pretty damned small. No room for fripperies like garages."

As for the sizes of many modern houses and flats, Freddie Cohen has said that the minimum has now been increased, so it will be interesting to see if any new housing developments will have little more than "two bedrooms and a pocket handkerchief of garden  each."

Who will buy them in the economic downturn is another matter, of course, unless they can persuade the Minister for Housing to do all in his power to boost house sales, as for instance in trying desperately to lower the age for qualifications. In the book, everyman who is anyone in the town belongs to the "Pillars of Sussex", a philanthropic organisation whose membership includes developers, politicians, police, lawyers and newspaper editors! I'm off to the library to get another book of his; I can't wait to see what the next synchronicity between fiction and fact will be!

 

Links:
http://www.gov.je/StatesGreffe/MinisterialDecision/PlanningEnvironment/2007/Fields.htm?DisplayReport=true

Les Creux, St Brelade: An Exercise in Ugfliciation

"We all need to play our part in respecting the environment.", Freddie Cohen, Election 2005 Manifesto

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BC0BDC890C0213DD


I've added a playlist of 4 short videos which show the area around Les Creux. There is not only the dumping of the soil to be seen, as I start with the road widening, in which the construction company (or should it be destruction) have widened the road hugely, hacking away at the cliff face, so that instead of vegetation, there is now a raw granite face - which itself is not just the roadside denuded of plant life, but hacked away itself. Large wooden "sleepers" also abound, making the whole roadside - which used to be a pleasant stroll - into a very ugly path.

It is clear that lots of the material from here is that dumped further around, and one of the clips also shows that.

There is also a brief shot of Lord Trent's Grave. Jesse Boot, later Lord Trent, was the founder of Boots the Chemist, and it is his widow we have to thank for Millbrook Park, the Lalique Glasswork at Millbrook Church, and the football field next by to that. What they would have thought to this "uglification" of the landscape, I do not know!

Setting Bad Examples

Oliver Finegold: Mr Livingstone, "Evening Standard." How did tonight go?
Ken Livingstone: How awful for you. Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: How did tonight go?
Livingstone: Have you thought of having treatment?
Finegold: Was it a good party? What does it mean for you?
Livingstone: What did you do before? Were you a German war criminal?
Finegold: No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal and I'm actually quite offended by that. So, how did tonight go?
Mr Livingstone: Arr right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?
Finegold: Great, I have you on record for that. So, how was tonight?
Mr Livingstone: It's nothing to do with you because your paper is a load of scumbags and reactionary bigots.
Finegold: I'm a journalist and I'm doing my job. I'm only asking for a comment.
Mr Livingstone: Well, work for a paper that doesn't have a record of supporting fascism

In a previous blog, and on his site, I asked Stuart Syvret to make an apology for his anti-Semitic remark. See:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/apologies-please-stuart.html

Now this is Stuart's response to my call for an apology.

My e-mail exchange with Freddy Cohen, in which I had accused him of gross hypocrisy for his betrayal of an unambiguous election promise to support exempting medical services and supplies from the Goods & Services Tax. He responded by, essentially, arguing that he resiled from his election promise because he was "a team-player". [The "team" being the Council of Ministers] To which I responded that the "need to be a team-player" may well have been used as an excuse by Nazis on trial at Nuremburg. He responded by saying he had never been so insulted in his life - and would never speak to me again (great). What - of course - one won't read in The Rag is the rest of the correspondence. I replied by saying that my remarks were intended to be insulting; as I knew exactly what such things meant. This because my mother's maiden name was Gould, and she was borne in a Nazi internment camp following my grandmother's deportation by the occupying Nazis. So, unsurprisingly, this latter part of the correspondence has still not appeared in The Rag. And people think I'm paranoid about that wretched journal? So, Tony - you want me to apologise to Freddy Cohen?

Yes, how you act gives the lead to others. Behaviour has consequences, and other people may not have what you see as a very nuanced approach to these matters. Look at one effect of Ken Livingstone's comment.

A concerned primary school teacher who, after telling off one of her pupils for who calling a Jewish child "a Nazi", was given the excuse that "The Mayor said it was OK, so why can't I do it

Also part of the exchange with Cohen is now fairly public, and sounds as presented like a general anti-Semitic remark, which must cause offense to members of the Jewish congregation in Jersey. They have good cause to feel touchy about such matters. Neo-Nazi movements are still around, and a recent Channel 4 Dispatches showed London newspaper vendors selling "Mein Kampf" - in Arabic. It doesn't take much to set the ball rolling, and when a culture exists in which remarks like that are taken as acceptable, we have gone a long way back towards the kind of culture which was a fertile soil for anti-Semitism.

Why use an anti-Semitic insult, when Philip Zimbardo, in "The Lucifer Effect" shows how situations shape the way people respond, which is what may well have happened in Cohen's case? A better case - might be to argue that as an outsider, being Jewish, he may have been desperate for acceptance, to the extent of betraying manifesto promises for existential gain, that of being part of the "inner ring".

C.S. Lewis comments on this kind of desire

I believe that in all men's lives at certain periods, and in many men's lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside. This desire, in one of its forms, has indeed had ample justice done to it in literature. I mean, in the form of snobbery. Victorian fiction is full of characters who are hag-ridden by the desire to get inside that particular Ring which is, or was, called Society. But it must be clearly understood that "Society," in that sense of the word, is merely one of a hundred Rings and snobbery therefore only one form of the longing to be inside.

This is a slippery slope, and notice how well it fits as a motivation for betraying manifesto promises. It is not to do with illegality but with a moral decay, with the gradual erosion of those ideals for which people enter politics. I think the following passage fits very well the phenomena which we have all observed, of a high minded individual going into politics, with the best of motives, and then - a year or more later - we wonder where those ideals have all gone, and why.

Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as a triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still... the hint will come. It will be the hint of something which is not quite in accordance with the technical rules of fair play: something which the public, the ignorant, romantic public, would never understand: something which even the outsiders in your own profession are apt to make a fuss about: but something, says your new friend, which "we"-and at the word "we" you try not to blush for mere pleasure-something "we always do." And you will be drawn in, if you are drawn in, not by desire for gain or ease, but simply because at that moment, when the cup was so near your lips, you cannot bear to be thrust back again into the cold outer world. It would be so terrible to see the other man's face-that genial, confidential, delightfully sophisticated face-turn suddenly cold and contemptuous, to know that you had been tried for the Inner Ring and rejected. And then, if you are drawn in, next week it will be something a little further from the rules, and next year something further still, but all in the jolliest, friendliest spirit. It may end in a crash, a scandal, and penal servitude: it may end in millions, a peerage and giving the prizes at your old school. But you will be a scoundrel.

In his reply to my comments, Stuart commented:

Firstly, as explained elsewhere, I have Jewish ancestry myself - and my maternal family suffered internment by the Nazis. So "anti-Semitic"? Sorry - it just won't wash.

That is a nonsense. Some Jews have even set up an anti-Semitic cartoon contest (http://drawn.ca/2006/02/14/israeli-anti-semitic-cartoon-contest/): "Amitai Sandy, the publisher of Tel-Aviv, Israel-based Dimona Comix, and founder of the contest jokes, "We'll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published! No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!" So, I'm sorry, your argument won't wash either!

More seriously, consider also the case of the Irène Némirovsky controversy - a Jewish writer, who tried to dissociate herself from other Jews in her life as well as being extremely unpleasant about Jews in her work, at least in the early novels she wrote and which secured her fame. The idea that somebody Jewish cannot be alienated from their roots to the point where they made anti-Semitic remarks about other Jews is quite possible. It has happened before. Look up "internalised oppression", for a good start on Google!

Secondly, "giving offence"? Just what & why should that be any big deal in societal discourse - at least if one comes at things from a post-enlightenment perspective? Sometimes offensive things need to be said - as part of debate - as part just getting at the truth. Indeed one of the banes of Jersey politics is that people attach so much importance to "politeness" - rather than the truth.

If by "post-enlightenment perspective", Stuart means "an excuse to be insulting when I feel like it", then I am sure he can do this very well. Postmodernism - which is what I assume he means by post-enlightenment - is really often little more than rhetorical posturing which avoids argument. In fact, a good deal of debate is conducted today at a shallow and trivial level... We are all used to, and tired of, the heated exchanges which consist simply of name-calling. If one wants an Occupation analogy, debate is avoided because the combatants merely want to dig into worn out positions and lob shells at "the other side" from the safety of their own bunker. I'm not saying that everything Stuart says is like that, but when he descends into insults, it is a case of out with the hand-grenades and mortars, and fire them off in the hope of provoking some response. To paraphrase him, I think he often writes a lot of sense, but it is obscured, because one of the banes of Stuart Syvret's politics is that he attaches so much importance to "insults" rather than the truth. He should consider how Leavis attacked C.P. Snow with a vicious ad hominem attack, and how the dignified way in which Snow responded left Leavis looking almost pathological in his insult.

Thinking about it - how could any sensible person look to politicians as a specie for "moral guidance"? Isn't "morality" and "politicians" an oxymoronic concept?

A good joke, but don't always paint the picture too black. Look at those politicians who have actually made changes which have benefited ordinary people's lives. At random, in no particular order, Nye Bevan, William Wilberforce, Lord Shaftesbury, Phillip Le Feuvre, Norman Le Brocq, Abraham Lincoln - to name a few.

Now let me give you a joke. I've yet to find a local politician apologise - even Stuart resolutely refuses to do so - "Isn't "apology" and "politician" an oxymoronic concept?

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4746016.stm

London's mayor has been suspended from office on full pay for four weeks for comparing a Jewish journalist to a concentration camp guard.
The Adjudication Panel for England ruled Ken Livingstone had brought his office into disrepute when he acted in an "unnecessarily insensitive" manner.
The hearing followed a complaint from the Jewish Board of Deputies, which had not called for the mayor to be suspended over the comment he made to the Evening Standard's Oliver Finegold outside a public-funded party. The chairman of the panel, David Laverick, said it had decided on a ban because Mr Livingstone had failed to realise the seriousness of his outburst. He said: "The case tribunal accepts that this is not a situation when it would be appropriate to disqualify the mayor. "The case tribunal is, however, concerned that the mayor does seem to have failed, from the outset of this case, to have appreciated that his conduct was unacceptable, was a breach of the code (the GLA code of conduct) and did damage to the reputation of his office." Mr Laverick went on to say that the complaint should never have reached the board but did so because of Mr Livingstone's failure to apologise. In a statement, the Board of Deputies of British Jews said it regretted the guilty result, but said Mr Livingstone had been "the architect of his own misfortune" by failing to recognise the upset caused. It added it had never sought anything more than an apology and an acknowledgement that his words were inappropriate for the "elected representative of Londoners of all faiths and beliefs".

The Inner Ring, C.S. Lewis
http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/

Article on Irène Némirovsky
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/22/secondworldwar.religion

Books:
The Lucifer Effect, Philip Zimbardo
The Two Cultures, C.P. Snow

Apologies Please, Stuart

It appears Stuart Syvret has sent an email in which he made some rather foolish comparisons. The JEP has it that "he compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST", but in fact what he has done is to compare the excuse made by the Nazis at Nuremburg - they were only "obeying orders" - as an interpretation of what Freddie Cohen means by being a "team player". This is what is called the "Nuremberg defense, and is often used as a shorthand - as for example in this newspaper cutting from 2004

A split opened up between Manchester fire chief Barry Dixon and councillor Fred Walker about who was responsible for the decision to suspend staff. Barry Dixon has adopted the Nuremberg defence and told the union and reporters that he is only obeying the orders of the fire authority councillors.

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=123400

In fact, this is widely accepted as a shorthand because of its historical antecedence, see for example

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense

The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his crimes. The defense was most famously employed during the Nuremberg Trials, after which it is named.

In fact, it goes back much further than that. Samuel Pepys notes that Colonel Daniel Axtell (1622-1660), Captain of the Parliamentary Guard at the trial of King Charles I at Westminster Hall in 1649 used this defense. After the Restoration he was hanged, drawn and quartered on 19 October 1660 for his part in the Regicide. His defence at his trial as a Regicide, that he was only obeying orders!

What is clear is that given the sensitive nature of the phrase in these circumstances - Freddie Cohen being Jewish - this was an appalling misjudgment on the part of Stuart Syvret, even if idea behind it was accurate, as it obviously carries anti-Semitic overtones. I think Stuart should do what Frank Walker has been unable to do (after the "shafted" incident), and show how he can apologise unreservedly and admit he made a gross mistake and should have taken more care. He should also apologise for to the Jewish congregation for any upset publicity of this sort has caused. A gracious apology I am certain would be acceptable.

There have been swastikas daubed on the Synagogue at Tabor, and I know (from eyewitness sources) that Freddie Cohen certainly would have been in a culture at Victoria College where schoolboys made anti-Semitic jokes, although anti-German ones were more common. But the stock Jew in jokes of the time, like that of the Scotsman, or even the Jersey born individual, was that of a very greedy and selfish individual. Freddie would have also not attended the School Assemblies - in those days certainly very Church of England - Catholics were also excused, and this did mark out these individuals as different. Schoolboys can be very cruel in such circumstances, and it is not surprising that Freddie's antenna for any kind of discrimination is very fine - note he was the only States member to come out in support - on the Facebook site - of the Havana club protest.

So I hope Stuart does apologise, and show he is not above admitting he can make mistakes. It is people who cannot admit mistakes - the so-called "strong men" - who actually demonstrate their own insecurities in their posturing, all the time deludedly thinking that other people see them as strong.

If you want to know how Stuart replied to this, see my blog entry at:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2008/08/setting-bad-examples.html



http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/08/senator-sparks-nazi-e-mail-row/

Senator sparks 'Nazi' e-mail row

SENATOR Stuart Syvret has compared a Jewish States Member to a Nazi war criminal in an e-mail row over GST.

Attacking Senator Freddie Cohen over his changing position on sales tax exemptions, Senator Syvret ridiculed the Environment Minister for saying that he was 'a team player' and that he had only backed GST on food after ministers agreed to exempt medical supplies.

Senator Syvret wrote: 'So, you are a "team player", eh? I expect that's exactly what Nazis on trial at Nuremburg would have said by way of mitigation.'

Senator Cohen has made a formal complaint about the e-mails to the Privileges and Procedures Committee, who are responsible for States Members' conduct. The committee do not have the power to discipline Members themselves - they can only recommend a censure or suspension to the States. The e-mails were copied to the Council of Ministers, some States Members and States chief executive Bill Ogley.

http://www.thisisjersey.com/2008/08/11/jewish-communitys-distress-at-nazi-jibe/

Jewish community's distress at 'Nazi' jibe
August 11, 2008 - 3:00 pm
From Stephen Regal.

I AM writing to you in my capacity as president of the Jersey Jewish Congregation and particularly in respect of the article in the JEP headed 'Senator sparks Nazi e-mail row'.

Commentary on the issues underlying the report are not within my remit. However, I feel that it is necessary to write to you to express both my and my community's distress at the reported comment made by Senator Syvret.

I find it difficult to consider that any individual as apparently erudite and educated as Senator Syvret could have innocently used such emotive phraseology in comparing the action of any Jew to that of a Nazi.

A more offensive or odious comment would be difficult to find. Irrespective of the context, the term Nazi is abhorrent to any Jew.

Unfortunately, memories of the Holocaust are still fresh in every Jewish mind and such intemperate comments from our democratically elected representatives can only cause tension and uncertainty in our minds.

Regrettably, anti-Semitism is on the increase around the world and negative comparisons tend to aid stereotypical visions that individuals who wish to interpret remarks in other than the context they have been made.

My plea, therefore, to all is please consider our words on all sections of the community. This should be particularly emphasised when committing oneself to print.

Armon,
Rue de La Croix,
St Ouen.

High Rise Buildings - Some Safety Considerations

This was written as part of a submission to Freddie Cohen at the time when high rise was on the agenda at the Waterfront. Given the height of Swansons building, I think it is still pertinent. I was once told by a fire officer that even with Les Marais, if a high fire broke out, forget being able to contain it. As it never found its way into details of submissions (very little did), here it is for all to read.

Safety Considerations

In his "Operational Aspects of High-Rise Firefighting", UK Fire Office Paul Grimwood researched firefighting experience in high-rise buildings and demonstrated that "many incident command systems and standard operating procedures for tall structures are based on out of date policies".

Where this is particularly relevant is in respect of the proposed "landmark" building of 15 stories. Some of the incidents he reports on occurred in buildings either of similar height or only marginally taller.

For instance, in 1996, due to welding work in an elevator shaft (maintenance and repair work), a fire broke out on the 16 storey Garland Building in Hong Kong, in which 39 people were killed, and 89 seriously injured. A helicopter was required to rescue more than 90 people who were in parts of the building inaccessible to conventional fire engine ladders.

In 1989, in Atlanta, in a 10 story office building an electrical fire killed 5 people, injured 23 others, and 6 firefighters. When the fire erupted, it immediately blocked the corridor, preventing escape from the two exits serving the floor. The fire demonstrated the need for automatic sprinkler protection for high rise buildings.

These demonstrate the need in high-rise buildings for precautions ("sprinkler systems, standpipes, fire detection systems, built-in fire protection systems"), and also the need for "a high level of co-ordination" and "a large commitment of resources" as "only with proper preplanning will familiarity with the response district be possible".

There is also dangers in stair-shaft negative pressures in high-rise buildings which "cause the fire to be 'sucked' out of the apartment or floor to head directly into the stair shaft" and which can be substantial. In 1998, an incident in a 10 story building involving negative pressure brought a fireball into the hallway claiming the lives of 3 fire fighters".

Grimwood comments that "Fires in high rise buildings everywhere have the potential to be one of the most challenging incidents to which we respond. The potential for loss of life is high"

If a decision is made to support a 15 story high-rise, it is certainly necessary both for the plans to be scrutinised by the fire department, and for the increased costs of fire drills and testing safety procedures which prudence would require.

Whether Jersey's fire fighting resources are indeed capable of tackling these kinds of problems needs to be considered, and an independent assessment by someone such as Paul Grimwood would make obvious sense. Planning must involve planning for safety, and the States have a moral duty of care to ensure that this is not overlooked in the rush to get ahead with development.

Selected References

Cohn, Roger, "High rise hell" (1985)

Grimwood, Paul, "Operational Aspects of High-Rise Fire Fighting" (2003)

The Lunatics have Voted in the Asylum

Just saw this on Channel Television:

Jersey's States have approved the Hopkins Masterplan to develop the Esplanade Quarter. The multi-million pound plan will see the underpass buried, offices and flats built on the site, and three public squares created. It's expected to take between seven and ten years to complete. Members approved the scheme late this afternoon by 40 votes to 6. Earlier in the day critics had tried to stall the plan by asking for a reference back. They wanted more information. But that move was defeated. Detractors fear there'll be traffic chaos for years to come, and the cost of treating the contaminated soil that'll have to be excavated will run into millions of pounds.

A few comments on the proposition.

Dictatorial powers are being used again, to use compulsory purchase if the States don't get their own way.

To approve the acquisition on behalf of the Public of the leasehold interest in an area of land which is held by AXA Sun Life Plc. situated at the rear of the Leisure Centre complex which forms part of the site of the Esplanade Quarter....to agree that, if it is not possible to agree with AXA Sun Life Plc. that it should sell its interest in the land referred to in sub-paragraph (b) above at a fair and proper price, the Minister for Planning and Environment should be empowered in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 119 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 to acquire such interest in land and any other interest therein by compulsory purchase on behalf of the Public in accordance with the provisions of the Compulsory Purchase of Land (Procedure) (Jersey) Law 1961,

They don't like Guy de Faye giving a blank cheque to developers for digging up property for drainage, but they do approve compulsory purchase for grand "masterplans".

Hopkins Architects Limited is one of the top architectural practices in Europe and has won many international accolades for its pioneering, often complex, high quality projects.

Let us not forget the Hastings Plaza project, where Hopkins were sent back to the drawing board

"We know this site must be developed, but to do so in a way that so blatantly… breaks fundamental urban design best practice, and fails to make even the simplest of contextual references, is not only grossly irresponsible but sets the poorest of precedents for private developers to follow."

"An early design which appeared confident, sensitive and restrained has become crowded as the promise of interesting forms in individual buildings is overwhelmed by the presence of an oversized car park and a reduction of the public space."

It will be interesting to see if the Masterplan fulfils its glossy brochure, or if the design will end up "crowded".

The Masterplan includes high quality office space for Jersey's thriving business community. Office space of the floor plate size and quality envisaged by the Masterplan is currently scarce in the Island despite there being demand for space of this type from a number of the largest financial and professional services operations in Jersey.

There is large office space, recently built (i.e. in the last 10 years) by Green Street Car park which is largely empty. And I am sure there are others. This is special pleading.

During the development there will principally be 2 phases of temporary traffic management. The first phase will cause little or no disruption to the flow of existing traffic and will be in place for approximately 2¼ years. The second phase will be more disruptive but will only be in place for the remaining 9 months of road construction. Whilst the second phase will disrupt road users, it is envisaged that the actual delay to journey times will only be a matter of minutes.

Note this very carefully!!! Although the whole building work will take 7 to 10 years, we are told that there will be no disruption for about 2 years, and then we will only have 9 months disruption. That should take us up to the next election!

The estimated long-term annual cost of maintaining and servicing the tunnel is £500,000 per annum. This cost consists of 2 main elements: (i) the cost of electricity to power lighting and ventilation; and (ii) the cost of maintaining the fabric of the tunnel (including maintenance and replacement of ventilation plant, lighting, signage, cleaning and maintaining the roadway).

Obviously a "green" environmentally friendly solution! At least they are addressing the problem of air quality, but that costs electricity and with rising energy costs, I am not convinced that £500,000 will prove sufficient. No doubt they'll slip the increase by later.

Notice that nothing at all is said about flooding prevention, which I suspect will incur extra costs.

The cost of maintaining the fabric of the tunnel and providing power will be met (as usual) by the Department for Transport and Technical Services. It should be noted that at present the Department has not been allocated a budget from which to fund this ongoing obligation.

That is good planning from the planning department! Well, some of that could always come from school milk being scrapped, and for the rest, let us increase GST?

The Esplanade Quarter is expected to take approximately 7 (not more than 10) years to complete.

I like the "three year" leeway on the timing!

---

A table of the votes is given below.

POUR: 40 CONTRE: 6 ILL: 1 EN DEFAUT: 3 NOT PRESENT: 3
	CONTRE	POUR	MISSING
Senator Stuart Syvret	1
Senator Leonard Norman		1
Senator Frank Harrison Walker		1
Senator Wendy Kinnard		1
Senator Terence Augustine Le Sueur			1
Senator Paul Francis Routier		1
Senator Michael Edward Vibert		1
Senator Philip Francis Cyril Ozouf		1
Senator Terence John Le Main		1
Senator Ben Edward Shenton		1
Senator Frederick Ellyer Cohen		1
Senator James Leslie Perchard		1
Connétable Kenneth Priaulx Vibert		1
Connétable Kenneth Alan Le Brun		1
Connétable Thomas John du Feu			1
Connétable Derek Frederick Gray		1
Connétable Alan Simon Crowcroft		1
Connétable John Le Sueur Gallichan		1
Connétable Geoffrey William Fisher		1
Connétable Daniel Joseph Murphy		1
Connétable Michael Keith Jackson		1
Connétable Silvanus Arthur Yates		1
Connétable Graeme Frank Butcher		1
Connétable Peter Frederick Maurice Hanning		1
Deputy Robert Charles Duhamel		1
Deputy Alan Breckon	1
Deputy Jacqueline Jeannette Huet		1
Deputy Frederick John Hill, B.E.M.		1
Deputy Gerard Clifford Lemmens Baudains	1
Deputy Peter Nicholas Troy		1
Deputy Celia Joyce Scott Warren			1
Deputy Roy George Le Hérissier		1
Deputy John Benjamin Fox		1
Deputy Judith Ann Martin			1
Deputy Geoffrey Peter Southern	1
Deputy Sarah Craig Ferguson		1
Deputy James Gordon Reed	1
Deputy Patrick John Dennis Ryan			1
Deputy Carolyn Fiona Labey		1
Deputy Collin Hedley Egré		1
Deputy Jacqueline Ann Hilton		1
Deputy Guy William John de Faye		1
Deputy Paul Vincent Francis Le Claire		1
Deputy John Alexandre Nicholas Le Fondré		1
Deputy Deidre Wendy Mezbourian		1
Deputy Anne Enid Pryke		1
Deputy Sean Power		1
Deputy Shona Pitman	1
Deputy Alan John Henry Maclean		1
Deputy Kevin Charles Lewis		1
Deputy Andrew David Lewis			1
Deputy Ian Joseph Gorst
Deputy Juliette Gallichan		1
	6	40	6

Hopkin's plans slammed
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=3047757

The Samurai Planning Officer

I see that Freddie Cohen has promised to "fall on his sword", metaphorically and resign if he does not get his own way over the Waterfront development plans. As the Waterfront would probably move Jersey towards a kind of mini-Tokyo, this kind of Samurai strategy probably makes sense.

Is it my imagination, but doesn't this sound like a sort of blackmail, and the kind of "it's not fair" that one gets from a petulant child used to getting his own way?

He says of course that he is following his manifesto in bringing the Waterfront development forwards. As (1) the plan did not exist at the time and (2) more to the point, it was only after election that he became head of Planning - this seems strange. In point of fact, nothing like sunken roads and winter gardens (with artificial light to make those artistically placed trees in the artistic impression in tonight's JEP - another environmentally friendly matter?) was ever mentioned in that manifesto. This is another red herring. I suggest he reads his manifesto again.

It reads:

"The town centre must be protected and we must be watchful of proposals for the Waterfront that threaten to shift too much of the vibrancy from the existing centre."