Field "myths" dispelled and challenged

Thursday 05 January 2023

Further details regarding the planned build on a field within the grounds of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital have been shared by a Health deputy - but disputed by others in the States.

Deputy Marc Leadbeater is a committee member for Health and Social Care.

He's shared an open letter this week - published in full HERE - where he has sought to "dispel a lot of the myths" that he said people have read on social media.

Deputy Leadbeater has accused opponents of the plan - raised by Policy and Resources, not HSC - to build key worker housing on the field as using "the same thin arguments tainted with spin and exaggeration" that they used to unsuccessfully prevent the building work politically.

Pictured: Deputies Yvonne Burford and Steve Falla have been among the most vocal opponents of plans to build on the field from within the States.

Deputy Leadbeater has again sought to dispel the "notion that the site is prime agricultural land – it is not".

He reiterates previously published information which records the land in question as having an agricultural quality classification of Grade 3b, which is "moderate quality land".

He claims that as the land is "far from prime agricultural land, it is subgrade 3b land, meaning it’s only capable of producing moderate yields of a narrow range of crops, or lower yields of a wider range of crops - and regardless of what you may have heard this is a fact. If you would like to see what prime agricultural land looks like then I suggest that you look at the land adjoining to the west – that is all prime, farmed agricultural land, and it looks markedly different from the site in question."

This comment has already been met with some derision from those with a background in farming - including Horace Camp, a frequent political commenter. 

Is Deputy Ledbeater a fool or just deliberately trying to deceive? Grade 3b land is excellent for grass, our main “crop”, and biodiversity doesn’t just require hedges and trees.

— Horace Camp (@oldfarmhorace) January 4, 2023

However, Deputy Yvonne Burford - another opponent of the building plans - has also stepped forward to contest some of the claims Deputy Leadbeater has made in his open letter.

Further to contesting claims of its agricultural value, he said it can't be both agriculturally important and brimming with flora and fauna offering value to the island's biodiversity.

He then said that building over the site which currently houses the Duchess of Kent offices would not be a cheap alternative as suggested by some. Deputy Burford is one who has said it would be economically better value - Deputy Leadbeater disagrees.

In today’s @GuernseyPress Deputy Leadbeater says it would cost £30m more to build the 140 units on the Duchess of Kent/Le Vauquiedor brownfield site than on the virgin field.

Even thinking about this for a minute one realises it doesn’t make any sense.

1/2 pic.twitter.com/8W9vZJZSc5

— Yvonne Burford (@YvonneBurford) January 4, 2023

Deputy Leadbeater - with his knowledge of HSC committee meetings - said that "we were told is that it would cost far less to redevelop the DoK building compared with the proposal of building next door. This was complete nonsense and I pointed this out when I spoke".

He said that the cost of building 60 units on the Duchess of Kent site with the cost of building 140 units on the proposed site is incomparable.

He also explained that the States Property Unit process considered properties within a 1km radius of the PEH and identified 14 possible sites in either States of Guernsey or private ownership.

"12 of those were on or within 0.5km of the PEH, and of those, seven were in States ownership. The sites were then scored against key criteria established by officers on behalf of HSC" - he said that work then found that the field was the best option against the defined criteria. 

Deputy Leadbeater explains that the "patch of land adjacent to the DoK, the proposed site, scored highest and was ranked first out of the 14 sites.

"The DoK site itself was not ranked because it did not meet the key criteria for delivery within five years, but even if all the sites had been ranked, the proposed site still would have scored highest.

"Contrary to some of the arguments you will have read, you can hopefully now understand that there was was a full and proper process undertaken in order to determine the best available site. "