The ‘motion to debate’ is an unusual step. Committees often fight shy of public debate. To embrace the opposite is a welcome change.

In their petition, vice-president Dawn Tindall and authority member Victoria Oliver say that they want the facts contained in the report to be ‘understood and disseminated as widely as possible’.

By allowing for questions and clarification it will ensure the monitoring process is robust and transparent, they say. All very laudable.

And risk-free. The debate would have no propositions, nothing for the States to vote against. Instead, deputies would simply be asked to ‘note the report’. It is not even possible to amend the debate.

It is, however, an opportunity for northern deputies, in particular, to challenge the perceived over-development of the Bridge corridor.

And for the DPA it is a chance to rebut those criticisms, armed with their own report which gives the IDP a clean bill of health. They are confident of their ground.

The trouble is, it is a false premise. For the report specifically states that it is not about revisiting the ‘clear’ States’ decision to focus development near the Bridge and Town.

And that is where the problem lies. The IDP is not failing, it is doing exactly what it was supposed to: cramming homes in the northern corridor and in St Peter Port.

The challenge for deputies is to get the planning authority to accept that the IDP is the fruit of a poisoned tree.

That is why green fields are being built on when there are brown-field sites available.

That is why sites in narrow lanes are getting permission for scores of tiny new homes with minimal parking.

And that is why developers are cherry-picking the most profitable sites, not the ones that make most sense.

The effect is only just starting to show. The permissions have been granted but developers have not started to build.

When they do, the folly of this divisive plan will be all too clear. But by then it will be too late.