From Keith Shaw.
I HAVE just read your front page report (JEP, 16 March) claiming that Senator Alan Maclean supports the scrapping of existing countryside protection, in favour of the building of a new supermarket.

One reason he gave was the benefits to local consumers, but I guess there would be considerable benefits to a landowner and builder also.

I am neither against competition nor shopping, and marvel every time I see the product ranges and prices in shops in places outside the Island. But I am realistic enough to realise that some of these choice and price advantages inevitably have other disadvantages. So I would like to point out the need for a little caution, before much more of the Island’s valuable agricultural land gets buried under concrete slabs and steel sheds.

Recently the UK Government’s chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, warned about the ‘perfect storm’ that could occur in around 20 years’ time. He referred to the combined scarcity and enormous increases in costs of oil, water and food.

As a small Island, Jersey is at the end of the supply chain for most commodities and, as we have reduced our self-sufficiency, expensive shortages of vital commodities will affect us more than most other locations.

Many would believe that it is becoming increasingly important to conserve, protect and use the Island’s open and productive land more wisely.

Last year a modern site clearing machine was demonstrated which removed previously viable arguments saying that old greenhouse sites were no longer viable for agriculture due to building waste.

As it is now easy to recycle, restore and reuse commercial land for productive agricultural use, in the same way as it was many years ago, we should be looking for sustainability.

This finally brings me to a question I asked an elderly farming acquaintance some time ago, after he told me about some farmers and growers in receipt of heavily subsidised public funding in order to expand their businesses in various ways.

He did not know what legal agreement was linked to the funding and if the difference in interest rates had to be repaid after a certain period or on the sale or change of use of the land. We both agreed that any one of those would have been fair, as it concerned the use of public funds. I wondered recently if there was even a ‘windfall tax’ payable on sale profits, if linked to land subsidised with public funding.

As we are now quite seriously short of public money, it would be nice to know that public funding has been used wisely in the past and has not helped to contribute to our present position.