Select a region
The States might need much more information on the proposed plans for Leale's Yard before any money changes hands, after the Vice President of the Development and Planning Authority urged deputies to consider the details before agreeing to the funding.
Deputy Andrew Taylor, seconded by Deputy Gavin St Pier, successfully argued that the States needed "details of what is being invested into, or purchased, and at what indicative cost, including indicative future costs" before agreeing to pay for any of the long awaited development work.
The Leale's Yard site behind the Bridge is owned by the Channel Islands Coop, and it has been earmarked for development with housing, public amenities and retail space for more than two decades.
The States have agreed to help fund the project to ensure it gets off the ground after numerous false starts, including an agreement made in August that the States will buy some of the new homes.
During the debate on the Funding and Investment Plan - which itself involves raising and spending many millions of pounds - Deputy Taylor told the States that they are doing things "in the wrong order" as deputies were asked to "allocate funds before we've agreed to do anything".
Pictured: The Leale's Yard project has been in the planning for decades.
The amendment also sought to ensure deputies had projected timelines for delivery and the hand over of any completed units, assurances of due diligence, and information on guarantees and warranties before £35m was allocated for the Bridge Regeneration Project.
"...what is being invested into, or purchased" queried Deputy Taylor, "we all need to know this, and future costs."
He added that "we need some indication of what our money is going to get us".
With Leale's Yard planned to provide hundreds of new housing units, Deputy Taylor said the timelines needed to be clearer when public money is involved.
"This is an agreement in principle to help housing supply...that's the end goal if we're wanting completed units for people to move into, but having a timeframe on that, that there is some commitment to, and I think that's key if we're going to make an investment because £35m into housing on one site could be a good investment but if it's not realistically going to deliver for another five years that money could be invested elsewhere," he said.
Deputy Sam Haskins argued that Deputy Taylor was asking "for a level of information that is just too much for this assembly", adding that things like due diligence are already covered by the procurement processes.
Pictured: The latest plans for Leale's Yard were approved last year.
"Leale's yard has been an absolute eye sore and a bomb site for too many years, absolutely awful and I think this will be a massive improvement to the bridge and I am fully supportive," said Deputy Simon Vermeulen, who also voted against the amendment while calling for "action this day".
He pointed out that all sitting deputies have been following the Leale's Yard plans for at least three years, so he queried why more detail was needed at this stage.
In response to most of the naysayers, Deputy Taylor said his amendment was simply "sensible" and he asked them to vote for it on that basis.
17 agreed, voting 'pour', while 16 voted against, meaning it passed on the tightest of margins.
The proposal will now be included in General Debate and will be activated if other propositions which include the decision to allocate funds to Leale's Yard are passed.
The past situation regarding a business owned by Deputy Taylor was brought up during the debate as he was asked if he was bringing this amendment in retaliation against another businessman involved in the Leale's Yard development who owned the premises which he used to rent for his coffee shop, but had been evicted from.
Through the Bailiff, Deputy Neil Inder asked Deputy Taylor a direct question.
Pictured: Taylor's Coffee Shop recently relocated from the Market to Mill Street.
"It feels to me very targeted on an individual who has taken Deputy Taylor to court and has evicted him from his cafe. Deputy Taylor is very good at getting up and using rules in this Chamber, so I am asking Deputy Taylor directly even though I don't think he's in breach of rule 15, we have within our rules a duty to act with honesty and integrity.
"Can he assure us, his reasons for putting this amendment together is not a direct attack against an individual within a company who has evicted him from one of his businesses."
Deputy Taylor responded directly, through the Bailiff while responding to the debate over his amendment.
"No, I don't see any conflict that I have to declare," adding that "if the scrutiny really needs to be directed at me, then we've got this wrong."
The debate continues...
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.