National park debate for the States

THE States are to debate making some of the Island’s most picturesque spots into a national park.

THE States are to debate making some of the Island’s most picturesque spots into a national park.

A proposal to create a coastal national park is contained in the draft Island Plan, which was released on Saturday. It will set Jersey’s planning policies for the next decade.

The document estimates that 4,000 homes will have to be built over the next ten years to cope with an increased population.

It says that if Islanders want to maintain their standard of living, then Jersey needs to have more workers to combat the effects of an increasingly elderly population.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "National park debate for the States"

Keith

I think it's a great idea, unlike for example Yossemite national park it would have the benefit of being able to view it in it's entirety without getting out of your car, we could advertise it as the world's smallest national park.Better still why don't we have it in the grounds of the town park, houses, kids play area and national park all in a square block - brilliant!

truthseeker

It does not need to be labeled National park, we are not a nation as such just a small island so.ringfence on the map these areas as NO DEVELOPMENT HERE...and there you have it .PROTECTED...which it deserves as it is and always will be worth more than mere money ever could......also we do not want another 20,000 people in 4,000 new homes it,s ridiculous.

Nellie Macon

Here we are back to the Frank Walker 2035 spin.

More immigration means more services are required and a greater strain on the infrastructure. In the end you're back to square one.

Analyse the population statistics since 1945 and the figures clearly show very little differential between the workers / pensioners / birth ratio - slight increase, that's all. The 2035 presentation was skewed in that it only gave us the figures for 5 years - population always has to be taken over a minimum of 10 years - or for as long a period as you can to be of any use.

The answer - control immigration and public expenditure and you can still maintain our current standard of living.

As for a national park - Senator Cohen wants to add all sorts of tracks and structures....more money wasted in this time of recession and why can't these areas remain wild and unspoilt? That's the beauty of them in the first place.

astonished expat

The need for more workers is not a good reason for building 4000 more homes unless the prices are realistic, and by that I mean within the means of the workers. At present houses start at circa 400,000 so an income of around 65,000 is required to services the mortgage after paying a hefty deposit. For new workers? I think not.

As for the national park idea, I agree with Keith(1); However it would be nice to think that any part of the Island, however small, could be left out of the clutches of developers.

Pip Clement

Islanders get to maintain their standard of living by importing more workers.

We will also have to import more of everything else eg food as the island produces virtually nothing in that line.

So in a world of diminishing resources Jersey is going to consume yet more.

And in the long term when these people want to retire, easy, we will just import yet more people...

Bernard

You better do it quick before Cohen builds on them!

Ann

Have our powers that be finally taken leave of their senses? Who will visit a national park in Jersey during the months of October and June???

Takethebiscuit

Has the incinerator question at Havre-des-pas been sorted out yet? There are many living creatures living in the sea at that end of the island.

david brown

400 new affordable homes( not flats) a year, yes .

more immigration , no.

make do with who is here now, teach and retrain.

how many school leavers are there each year?

Annie du Feu

I've said this before but i think its just a way to reduce the meaning of green field sites and allow more building on green field sites.

Colin Machon

A National Park, how wonderful..................

Oh yea, and what an opportunity for a lovely new States department to administer it. How many people, oh lets start with 20 and see how it goes.

TOTAL rubbish. Ring fence the areas, leave them alone, call them what you like, but NO MORE CIVIL SERVANTS.

astonished expat

Has anyone looked into the effect of the ageing population on the need for more homes. These people are not going to be around long term, and if they form such a large percentage of the population then a lot of homes will be vacant and surplus to requirement. Probably an oversimplification but surely this needs to be factored into the equation. Of course this will not make any money for developers etc. which may be why it is ignored.

Spring Heeled Jack

Great idea, lets get old "fingers" Maclean onto the case. Its a sure fire winner.