When the Market Doesn’t Build: Reflecting on Housing Policy During a Time of Change
First published in the Jersey Evening Post 2025-09-20
In a recent Scrutiny hearing and follow-up media coverage, Deputies Hilary Jeune and Steve Luce offered an assessment of Jersey’s housing provision that, at first glance, seems both reasonable and reassuring. With population growth slowing and substantial land already zoned for housing, the implication is that the Island may already have enough housing in the pipeline to meet future demand.
This position is not without logic – and both Deputies have shown real commitment to navigating the pressures and constraints of their portfolios. Deputy Jeune has consistently championed affordability, while Deputy Luce has signalled a desire to balance development with environmental stewardship and planning integrity.
But for those of us trying to make sense of the Island’s persistent housing crisis -from young families and first-time buyers to social landlords and small developers -there is a lingering puzzlement. Can it really be true that we are doing enough, when so many Islanders still cannot afford to stay, let alone settle, here?
It’s from this place – not of challenge, but of curiosity – that I want to explore the apparent contradiction between the Deputies’ position and the broader picture of housing stress in Jersey. I do so with humility, recognising that both bring more experience to this policy space than I do. But sometimes, a perspective from the outside can help clarify what might be obscured by the necessary complexity of decision-making inside the States.
Reading the Numbers
Deputy Luce recently argued that the slowdown in net migration and population growth means current land allocations are sufficient. Deputy Jeune added that housing delivery must now focus on building out already-zoned sites rather than expanding the planning footprint.
On a purely arithmetic level, this may be true. But housing need is not just about how many people live on the Island. It is also shaped by how we live – by household size, generational patterns, mobility, and the suitability of the existing stock.
Even if Jersey’s population stabilises or contracts slightly, the number of households can still grow, especially if more people live alone, couples delay cohabiting, or older Islanders remain in under-occupied homes because there are too few downsizing options. A stable headcount does not equal a stable housing system.
The Affordability Factor
Affordability remains a key pressure point. The 2021 Census showed that more than half of renting households spend over 30% of their income on housing – a threshold often used to indicate financial stress. Meanwhile, home ownership among under-40s has declined sharply.
So even if the supply of homes – on paper – matches forecast need, that doesn’t mean Islanders can access them. A planning permission is not a key to a front door.
When the Market Doesn’t Build
This brings us to a deeper tension. Both Deputies have expressed support for free market solutions and have appeared cautious about stronger intervention tools such as compulsory purchase or land value taxation. In principle, a functioning housing market should allocate resources efficiently, matching supply with demand at reasonable prices.
But is Jersey’s housing market functioning in this way?
Evidence suggests not. Recent reporting showed that over 30 housing sites with permissions for more than 800 homes remain undeveloped. Some have been cleared but not built; others are delayed indefinitely. Meanwhile, anecdotal and formal evidence of land banking – the strategic withholding of development to await higher returns – continues to emerge.
This is not just a matter of private inefficiency. It is a structural market failure. When land is scarce, permissions are discretionary, and public need is urgent, the decision to hold land idle has social costs. Yet those costs are not paid by the landowner; they are paid by the Island – through outward migration, falling birth rates, and a younger generation locked out of home ownership.
In such circumstances, free market tools may not be sufficient. They assume rational actors responding to price signals. But where monopoly power, speculation, or strategic delay enter the picture, the invisible hand becomes a clenched fist.
Navigating Trade-offs
None of this is easy. Deputies Jeune and Luce have inherited a housing system shaped by decades of decisions, hesitations, and planning bottlenecks. The Island Plan process also demands compromise: between growth and heritage, density and amenity, short-term needs and long-term sustainability.
It’s entirely fair to note, as both Deputies have, that not every delay is malign. Inflation, labour shortages, and supply chain issues all contribute to developer hesitancy. And compelling private actors to build faster requires not only the legal tools but the capacity to enforce them fairly.
Still, if we take their positions at face value – that no further land needs to be zoned, and that the market will deliver if left alone – we risk underestimating the depth and nature of the crisis. What looks like caution may in practice become inertia.
A Call for Clarity
What might help at this stage is not more blame, but more evidence. Clearer modelling of housing need – factoring in affordability, household composition, and land attrition – could ground the debate in shared understanding. Transparency around why certain sites remain undeveloped could also shed light on whether the issue lies with developers, with policy, or with infrastructure.
Public engagement will be key. Islanders are acutely aware of the housing problem but may not fully understand the constraints the planning system operates under. Similarly, landowners and developers should be invited to explain what enables or impedes them from bringing homes to market.
Seeking Solutions Together
Deputies Jeune and Luce have both shown a willingness to speak openly about the challenges facing Jersey’s housing landscape. Their instincts – to scrutinise the pipeline, to avoid over-development, to respect community identity – are not wrong. But the risk is that in seeking not to do too much, we may end up doing too little.
The housing crisis is not just about numbers – it is about timing, access, and trust. And in a market where permissions don’t always translate into delivery, and where young people continue to leave for want of a future they can afford, we may need to be braver in naming market failure for what it is.
That doesn’t mean abandoning free market principles. But it does mean asking: when the market won’t build, what then?
If we can approach that question not with confrontation but with curiosity, we may find answers that serve us all.