Ms Attracta U? Bhroin:

I very much appreciate the Deputy's suggestion in the earlier session that this matter should be looked at separately given the complexities therein. I would like to involve Ms Dubsky in my response.

We are very interested in seeing, if possible, the legal advice that was referred to earlier, and sharing that, and being able to revert and consult a little bit further on this matter. There is a really significant case that is very relevant for a common law system, such as ours, which is the Thames Heliport court case in which the requirement for planning, as I understand it, was considered as a ship that operated to allow for planes to take off and land but without planning. The court case all hinged around the definition of land and the considerations around the seabed. The water in between the ship and the seabed was considered to be covered because the ship was supported by the water which, in turn, was supported by the seabed. So there is a lot that can already be drawn on. What we struggle with is understanding why and what additional is being proposed here given that the development, in terms of what is required to be constructed above, has always been covered. For example, if one builds a house the air space that one occupies above is covered but this Bill just refers to airspace untrammelled and talks about subsoil. We need to be very conscious of the implications, particularly in terms of minerals and all those different types of things, and the provisions in the Foreshore Act in terms of that. So one must be conscious of the potential for a whole host of other issues that I mentioned earlier.