Housing development approved for Plémont

A development of 28 houses has been approved for land at Plémont.

01725499_Cropped

A development of 28 houses has been approved for land at Plémont.

After years of debate, proposals, protests and campaigns, Environment Minister Rob Duhamel has today given the go-ahead to an application by owner Trevor Hemmings to develop the former holiday village site.

The National Trust for Jersey has been campaigning to save the land from development and last week revealed they had collected £2m worth of pledges towards the cause.

Next month the States are due to debate Chief Minister Ian Gorst’s proposal to buy the land, possibly using a compulsory purchase order, from the owner.

• See Thursday's JEP for full report and reactions

Comments for: "Housing development approved for Plémont"

Bean

For somebody who is worth around £900 Million pounds, why does he not do the right thing and revert it to what it should be? Surely these are not the sort of people we want in our island!

I Pasdenom

Bean,

Why does it matter what the net worth of the owner is when making a planning decision?

I wonder how you'd vote on Ratepayer's money being spent on the West Park pool?

Shouldn't it be removed and returned to nature, just like the seawalls??

"...Surely these are not the sort of people we want in our island!..."

Yeah, God forbid we let people in who aren't a drain on taxpayer's resources, pay tax and want to introduce investment; and let's not forget he did so within the limit of the Planning laws, and was knocked back against the advice of most professionals involved in the process.

Certainly not the kind of person we should be encouraging!!

Mr Bean

I agree. In fact, I believe everyone who owns a coastal property around the island should sell it to the National Trust at a tenth of its value and leave the island. The National Trust can then revert all coastal property to nature then us true beans who live in the middle of the island will have a seaview and somewhere to walk our dogs (on leashes) of a weekend.

Crystal

Hear hear, very well said

St Clement Gardener

Hear hear, I second that motion. Well said!

Credit to Rob Duhamel for making the bold decision. He was correct in his decision and thank god the powers that be took notice of and external report for a change.

I was getting worried for as while as the pressure from 'save plemont headland' group were getting a lot of support/coverage from the JEP but in actual fact only represented a small minority of the islands population. This was made very clear reading the posts on this website for every article.

Phew for the tax payers pocket!

the Enforcer

Given your comments I would clearly want him over you - wishing thinking on my part though.

Keyser Soze

Maybe he is no longer on the island, as I understand that Mr Hemmings currently lives on the Isle of Man.

JerseyD

Well that sucks - what is goign to happent ot eh £3mil raised?

I Pasdenom

JerseyD,

If you're talking about the NTfJ's millions; This approval shouldn't stop the debate on the 4th December about whether taxpayer's funds should be used in conjunction with compulsory purchase laws to purchase the property for a different more favoured property developer.

The owner could well make the same money negotiating with the States than actually going to the trouble of building and selling the houses! And good luck to him; maybe that kind of massive loss will focus the electorate's attention on the quality of politician they've asking to represent them!

P.J.K.

Good decision Mr. Duhamel!

Jerry Gosselin

Or the "environmentalist" Mr Duhamel, as he described himself on TV after the decision, which must be a real kick in the teeth for people who genuinely care about the island's island's natural heritage. No future for any return of the puffins up there either- the domestic cats will surely see to that. If he was a real environmentalist, that might just be playing on his mind these next few nights, but I have a feeling he'll be sleeping as soundly as ever!

Real Truthseeker

Jerry - you clearly didn't read the report. This decision will bring back puffins which have been decmiated by the rat population.

Read and get the facts before you spring into action next time.

BR

Finally a sensible decision that should have been made a long time ago!

BeanThereDoneThat

Probably the most common sense ever shown by a Planning Minister. I doubt that the States would succeed in a compulsory purchase route. The only winners there would be the lawyers and the fees to take it to court and the possibility of losing and having to pay both sides costs.

Please now let the developer get on with it, provide homes at his risk of there being sold and as promised return two thirds of the scrub land back for alll to enjoy. Sounds like a great and most importantly sensible route to go.. And please don't start on how the traffic will cope in a narrow approach road. Having been a regular at Pontins on business I can recall, coaches and at times well over 100 hire cars and they all managed to enter and exit. Great move by the Planning Minister maybe his first actual decision since he entered the States but it is a good one..

Puzzled, again...

Good.

The National Trust can now use their £2m wisely elsewhere, the eyesore holiday camp can come down, some houses can be built and 90% of the island's population can forget about this drama in a corner of the island they never go to anyway.

Crack on with the work.

Constables OUT

Well done Mr Duhamel,commom sense touch at last will get my vote next time (depending on how we can vote!)

Daffodil

Thank goodness for common sense at last. If the National Trust and its spokespeople were so keen that the area should revert to nature why did they not speak up and pay up when the Pontins site was for sale years ago? Mr Duhamel has made the right and wise decision.

Kermit

Great! Portlet No2 is on the way !!!

It will probably get a architectural design award as well to prove everybody wrong.

puffin

Don't forget the Radison Kermit, another award winning gem you forgot to mention ;)

St Clement Gardener

Seriously Kermit

Have you not seen the plans? It is actually very tastefully and sympathetically designed.

On a positive note... It's not bright orange and less than 3 stories so it is unlikely to gain any awards.

James

Great news. Now, dear States members, don't go giving our hard earned money away to a minority interest group.

coninSpector

What was all the fuss about anyway. Only a handful of islanders visit Plemont on a daily basis. There are plenty of beautiful seaview spots in Jersey for us to visit. The cash saved on saving Plemont can be used to save the healthcare of all islanders. Good decision.

Miles

It really makes you wonder what will happen to the next generation. The kids of the parents buying these properties now, won't be able to sell when they grow up because the next generation won't have any cash in their pockets. The site wasn't nice but fields to grow vegetable might be needed in the future the way this world is going...............

malthuswasright

I agree Miles, just a pity the short-sighted, greedy developers and their supporters don't.

Warren J

The reality is that no-one gives a stuff about the next generation, who will be burdened by higher tax burdens to fund the retirement of an aging generation, and additional restrictions on what they can eat, do etc etc !

The days of States Loans, tax breaks and help to young families are long gone. What happens at Plemont will have absolutely no effect on the next generation. The real benefit would have been 150 3 bed semis on the site !

I know that I am well know for being blunt, but that sadly is the reality

Miles

@Warren J, the reality is not even a 3 bed semi would be affordable, more a studio flat.

Steven

Gutted, a very sad day for the island.

Another gutted local

What else can you expect, Steven. This island is run by the greedy for the greedy. It was never going to go any other way.

Miracles don't happen in real life.

The bounders have even got the economic downturn which they played a part in the evolution of as a justification not to save the area. That's what I find most cynical.

Rob Duhamel doesn't deserve a good Jersey name. Another birthright seller, just like so many others in public office over the years.

I Pasdenom

Another gutted local,

"... This island is run by the greedy for the greedy. It was never going to go any other way..."

Is that why it took years to finally have perfectly good and legal plans approved?

The facts seem to suggest that those running the island ignored the laws in frustrating the approval of these plans, until an independent 'outsider' took the decision for them.

And remind me how the Min. could be described as greedy, when he gets the same wage either approving or not?

Greed? I think there's a greater display of jealousy in most of these arguments!

St Clement Gardener

Your right Steven, jersey weekly post coming to an end is a travesty.

On a positive note though, plement has been given planning permission and won't cost the tax payer a penny!!!

I Pasdenom

Finally an admission that the former refusals by Ministers were not in line with the professional views of the architects, lawyers, planning professionals etc. etc. etc.

It is this political interference in the planning process that is holding Jersey back.

I hope that during the debate on 4/12/12 this is properly recognised, and if *we* are to buy the land for the NTfJ then I hope *we* pay the owner a fair sum based on the value today AND the blatantly unnecessary costs incurred by him over the last decade+, and in recognition of the higher value of the land had the previous applications been properly considered

The Nock

If I didn't know any better, reading your comments, I would think you had a vested interest?!

I Pasdenom

I do! I want States Depts. that are well run, and treat people equally, whether rich or poor; and I don't want taxpayer's money wasted, especially not on schemes to force people to do what they don't want in favour of others. It matter not especially to me that this is public money proposed to subsidise one developer over another; my interest is in the system.

Real Truthseeker

At last! Now let's move on.

I don't see why the National Trust as Jersey's largest PRIVATE landowner shodul be given any more leg ups to acquire more and more property!

There would have been nothing stopping them from fencing and keeping it for their own use.

Great decision!

Mario

The hilarity of your comments is beyond compare.

Real Truthseeker

Why Mario - the NT has fenced off their land along the north coast and restricted access.

They are a private landowner.

Tax payers funds for them is disgusting.

Nevermind, the CPO if attempted will fail, with heaps of legal fee's.

This is going ahead - get used to it.

Steven

Mr. Truthseeker.

The National Trust receive no tax payers money as part of their operation, it is only now that they are asking for help to preserve a part of the Islands natural heritage, why is that so bad?

The north coast is fenced off as part of a sheep grazing conservation project to improve the area for wildlife and people, which is open to the public to walk through.

Please get your facts right first.

I Pasdenom

Steven,

"...help to preserve a part of the Islands natural heritage, why is that so bad?..."

The preservation isn't 'bad', what is their proposal to have the Public use compulsory purchase laws on their behalf, against a rival developer.

They then wish for their own development to be massively subsidised by the Public with presumably a pre-application agreement that their development will be approved.

And they have said that they *will* be closing the cliff path and restricting access by a form(undisclosed) of permit.

The approved development has time limits imposed (I think work must start within 5years?) the NTfJ have made it clear they have not committed to their development starting(other the the restriction of access) within any timescale; it could feasibly leave the property derelict for a generation(or more).

Real Truthseeker

My facts speak for themselves. The NT restrict access to the general public. Further, I don't pay taxes to be given away to a private organisation to acquire land for their use.

Finally, Gorst and Bailhache will be held to account if this goes ahead. Their votes are not the sandal wearers, but the silent majority who will be appalled at such a waste of taxpayers money.

WB

'Their own use' being the maintenance and cultivation of a site of natural beauty and wildlife. What a horror that would have been. No wonder you left New Zealand - all that beautiful scenery must have wound you right up

mallouin

Sad but probaly inevitable,but let's not kid ourselves with the new registration coming in it's very unlikely that these will be bought by islanders.With the price tag that these will command and the J-cat gone just wait and see and not just here,a lovely way to fill pricey properties and keep the market up imo.Immigration controls lol.

pauper

Brilliant news, I for one welcome the outcome. Now let's hope all the harassment from the National Trust can stop!!

s

"Harassment" - a campaign to protect and preserve a unique part of Jersey is hardly that. Wonder how long youve actually been in Jersey.

pauper

A lot longer then you mate!!!

s

Over 600 years family history in the Island, beat that?

Sensible

Pauper has over 700 family history in the island. Beaten.

s

well in that case its even more of a shameful original comment, one would hope someone with such a heritage in the Island would welcome the work of an organization that attempts to preserve something of Jersey, and not see them doing what they are mandated to do as "harassment". Who exactly have they "harassed"? I am not a member of the Trust either, but respect what they try to do for my Island. Shame more Jersey people dont. Makes we wonder how true the 700 years is.

pauper

My reply to S,

It is irrelevant whether I have lived here since Christ was born or not, my opinion would be the same as someone who has lived here for a few years. As for the National Trust campaigning with the help of the media, I have admiration for the land owner who has remained quite and dignified throughout this onslaught. How many people have actually enjoyed staying at any of the properties the National Trust have refurbished and taken over? And I mean the working class families not essentially employed folk. Have you not noticed all those in the media that have voiced their campaign opinion could actually afford to purchase the land between them? I object to public money being used when more important projects need public money. And by the way I am local and have links back to 1066, but that doesn't make me any different from someone who has just arrived here.

Brian Jacks

Finally a great decision by a States member. A senstive scheme, employment opportunities for local firms, family homes and no cost to the taxpayer.

Well done Rob Duhamel.

Blade

Well done Deputy.

NO TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN USED FOR THE MINORITY TO HAVE ITS WAY.

coninSpector

Miles

If I had a seaview house, I would not wish to sell it and besides, the children of the owners can inherit the beautiful house.

Miles

@coninSpector, if you don't have money or a job for the upkeep what's it worth. I can go to the beach and have a seaview for free. One day it will just be a concrete block like it is now.............

puffin

Bloody hell Miles don't tell me they are gonna build on the beaches next? Won't they have to build walls first to keep that damn tide out?

Miles

In Jersey anything can happen:-), I see skyscrapers in St Ouen. Maybe house boats are the idea, at least you're happy when the tide comes to leave the rock.

Tony

Am I right is saying that the States can still overide this decision with a compulsory purchase order ? Assumming of course that a propositions has members approval. Please advise me as confused.

Real Truthseeker

They could attempt a CPO, however the law states that if it is challenged by the owner, then the States have the onus to prove that it must occur for the "... betterment of society in terms of infrastructure." If it isn't, then the Court will reverse the decision (not after loads of legal fee's of course).

I Pasdenom

Yes, the debate over purchasing the land to give away to another developer takes place 4th December.

This proposal was bought in full expectation that the public inquiry was going to finally allow the application.

Apparently the £37,000 wasted on the inquiry wasn't enough, so they want to piss-away another £10m+ Let's hope they don't

puffin

So Mr Duhamel will go down in the history books along with his mate Cohen the Barbarian for ruining Plemont in the same way as Portelet, only it will be far bigger and even more awful.

Why oh why haven't they learnt after the Portelet fiasco? :(

I Pasdenom

puffin,

How is Plemont's 28 houses bigger than the portelet development?

I think you're factually wrong.

BDK Architects

Puffin, please look at the Plemont scheme before suggesting it is another Portelet. The proposals are completely different, Plemont will return land nearest puffin habitat to nature and fund research & action for conservation of puffins in Jersey along with several other benefits. The Island will gain over 14 vergees of new public open landscape (/3rds of the site) at no cost to the taxpayer.

The Inspector concluded our scheme will significantly improve the environment, ecology and character of the area. That is why he recommended approval.

In fact any buildings at Plemont will become a whole lot smaller, moved further away from the cliffs, and substantially better. A 'Win Win' sensible decision from the Planning Minister.

BDK Architects

Puffin, please look at the Plemont scheme before suggesting it is another Portelet. The proposals are completely different, Plemont will return land nearest puffin habitat to nature and fund research & action for conservation of puffins in Jersey along with several other benefits. The Island will gain over 14 vergees of new public open landscape (2/3rds of the site) at no cost to the taxpayer.

The Inspector concluded our scheme will significantly improve the environment, ecology and character of the area. That is why he recommended approval.

In fact any buildings at Plemont will become a whole lot smaller, moved further away from the cliffs, and substantially better. Completely opposite to Portelet. A 'Win Win' sensible decision from the Planning Minister.

Crystal

I have studied the plans in detail and this nonesense about two thirds of the site being 'returned to Nature' is simply not true. About 15% of the site is being returned to Nature, the rest of it becomes the 'village green' for millionaire's houses that no-one will feel comfortable using and that, unless covered by a covenant, will eventually become part of the building group in termsof its management and ownership. It's useless as habitat.

Steven

BDK...

Is not the arguement of 'improvement' a bit of an obvious one? the site has been derelict for 10 years so it is common sense that things need to change.

And you say that 2/3 of it will be returned to nature, but it is my understanding that the majority of this will be in patches and the space between the houses so therefore your return to nature comment is very mis-leading.

Also, what are the details for the funding research? I also think that this may be an empty gesture.

superfrog

i think its sad more houses what a waste.more houses = higher population because it wont be the local people buying them because we cant afford it it will be some rich person from england or afar when will it stop when there are no fields or coastline to build on very sad indeed

Holmes

@superfrog, It's very sad but what can you do. I left the shores of Jersey and moved to Ireland (personal taste), got a job here bought a house in the coutryside and don't have to be rich. Town is only 20 mins drive away where plenty of jobs are available if you look (despite recession and news you hear) and coast is never too far away. Although there was a building boom (good time to buy now though) we have unspoilt countryside with enough land to grow vegetables:-) Jersey will never change and has become unaffordable for the average working person, unless you have a paid mortgage or are happy to live in a studio flat. It will always be my home but sometimes you just have to move on........

the thin wallet

i am so glad that the taxpayers purse will not be raided to pay for plemont.

and will create some short term jobs .

egalitarian

Your thinking is so typical of the short term thinking of the average inhabitant of Jersey.

Jersey Girl

At long last planning has made a good decision I'm sure it will look fantastic once finished.

oh really

A good result for common sense a good result for jersey. The trusts sensationalist FB campaign has not suceeded - hooray !

This people is no portelet, unlike portelet, we will not look back in years to come and regret. Plemont Bay will still be beautiful and all and more of the headland we've always enjoyed will be there.

... but i dont agree that Duhamel should get any praise here; the baby landed in his lap and ultimately he deffered the decision to an outsider ... not my decision, just taking advice

egalitarian

I presume you think that visitors go to the Lake District, the Yorkshire Moors and the New Forest, for example, to see housing developments.

WB

Cue further irrevocable despoliation of our coastal heritage to afford a handful of super rich individuals the opportunity of parking their Landrovers within view of the sea. Maybe we could persuade Donald Trump to build a small golf course for us there as well.

I Pasdenom

"...irrevocable despoliation of our coastal heritage..."

What like building a holiday village? Oh no, not that; because decades later we've got 2 developers fighting over who gets to revoke that development and return the area(not completely in either proposed development) to 'nature', albeit a 'managed' nature(?)

"...to afford a handful of super rich individuals the opportunity of parking their Landrovers..."

This argument keeps coming up too; and makes me wonder how many people are arguing out of jealousy more than anything else.

If this 'super rich' developer(not the super rich NTfJ BTW) was to gift this land to a pauper, and the pauper decided to continue with the development and sell it for a very meager profit would people still argue against him? and if not, and wealth isn't the issue why bring it up just because somebody is wealthy?

Pip Clement

Plenty more to come in the saga.

We have the vote to purchase the site in December and then there is the development.

Looking at the dead housing market and the stalled developments round the island and a speedy start does not look that likely.

Propaganda

Glad to see the right decision has been made. 28 nice looking houses and 2/3rds of the land gifted back to the island to remain in it's natural state.

A far better result than spending upwards of 6 million quid of tax payers money on the 1/3rd of the land for the few.

egalitarian

You obviously know the cost of everything but the value of nothing if you think this is a far better result.

pauper

Egalitarian,

If you regard this as a poor result? Then where were you and all your cronies when that huge building appeared above La Coupe beach near Rozel? Accept my apologies now if there was some sort of objections to that building, but why make such a stand over Plemont when places with equally good coastal wildlife didn't receive the same attention.

egalitarian

Regrettably, I didn't know what was going to happen at La Coupe or I certainly would have objected to it.

Years ago, when the Bal Tabarin was put up for demolition and development, I wrote to the JEP proposing its return to nature.Something that I'm so pleased I did as the area, in my opinion at least, is much improved.

egalitarian

Unfortunately, I did not know what was to be at La Coupe otherwise I would have been against it at the time.

Many years ago, when plans were for the Bal Tabarin to be developed, I wrote to the JEP proposing that the site be purchased and returned to a natural state. It was done,(I don't claim it was my doing) and the area is vastly improved by the building there having been razed.

Sarah & Elly

Very true for jobs, construction is needed here.... Will local people be employed as again this is given to others from Poland etc. What a shame that the average person can not afford to buy, not because house prices are too high in some cases! More the fact that Jersey people are struggling to get a mortgage as the jobs have been given to people from the EU. Shame for Jersey people who seem to be a dying breed.

Jersey needs to claim back what's hers....

Maria

Family Homes!! no ordinary Jersey family could afford a House on the Plemont side, or a first time buyer.

Mr Hemmings could now sell it to a Developer and make more profit,like the owner of Living Legend! Mr Hemmings has £500 million to his Name, as a good gesture he could gifted to the people of Jersey who like to enjoy nature!How many People who are in agreement with the development have been out to Plemont or walked on our beautyful Cliff path or visited Plemont Bay.There are going to be 60 plus Cars more then there are already driving on that narrow Road everyday and even a lot more in the Summer, it will be chaos.

pauper

I disagree with you, the fact there will be less cars on the road then previous times, as for domestic animals? the simple answer is to ban all dog walkers around that area who cannot be bothered to pick up their dog foul! As a walker myself, I am really p....d off with having to spend more time watching my footing so as not to tread in the crap left behind by dog owners. The National Trust have a habit of doing up our heritage buildings and putting extortionate rents on them so as mere local folk cannot afford them, and any land they receive, they fence off for their own use. And don't even mention the roads being dug up for laying services, as they are already in place.

Do you own a garden? I am looking for a small vegetable plot will you donate part of your garden to me? I think not.

Read the report

Please read the inspector's report.

http://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=840

On pages 34 and 35 you will find that your argument about traffic is debunked. There are plenty of other small lanes in Jersey that cope with similar traffic. Your description of "chaos" is nothing but hyperbole.

Besides, if you follow the logic of the National Trust, and the States did buy Plemont to return the whole site to nature for the benefit of all islanders....then it would be so spectacularly beautiful that we would all be wanting to drive up there in our cars, wouldn't we?

Read the report

For the avoidance of doubt, my reply was to Maria, not pauper.

Realist

A couple of letters both for and against returning Plemont to nature were published online in the lead up to the Minister's decision today.See Letters to the editor tab above.Unusually there were no comments allowed for either.Both had added headers provided, not by the authors, but presumably by editorial staff.Readers tend to rely on headlines before they read the content.The latest was "Morally wrong to spend so much on a strip of land" and then "Save Plemont and show the World we care".I could not find any reference alluding to either headers within the content of those letters.The latter added header above Bruno Riorda's letter supporting Plemont's return to nature was demeaning and cynical,a sickly sweet song lyric.I respect both views of the two published authors but parity seems to be absent when it comes to those charged with reflecting differing points of view,who add the headers and dare I say it,it's a subtle manipulation and as the first header says,"morally wrong".

The price is £14m and do not use public money

Let's face facts here. Each of the 28 houses at Plemont would sell for between £900k and £1m.

In property development, the rule of thumb is usually "a third, a third, a third". A third for the cost of the plot, a third to build the house, and a third profit for the developer, who takes a financial risk. In the case of the proposed Plemont houses, that would be roughly £300k plot, £300k build cost, £300k profit per unit.

If Senator Bailhache and the National Trust do not want those houses built, that is fine. Unfortunately, the cost is £14m and the money should NEVER come from the public purse.

How is the £14m valuation arrived at? Easy. 28 times £600k (the plot cost and the unrealised profit per plot) is £16.8m. Subtract the demolition fees that the developer would have to fund and you get to roughly £14m. That is the fair price for that land.

Anyone suggesting that £8m is the correct value for the land needs their head checking. The developer has a legal right to develop the land or return it to tourism use. Compulsory purchase using taxpayers' money should be completely out of the question. It is obscene that a minority interest group such as the National Trust should be treated so favourably, when public money is desperately needed elsewhere, for example in our health service.

The National Trust for Jersey owns lots of land and other buildings. If Plemont is SO important to the Trust, it could sell £14m worth of its other assets. Covenants could be attached to those sales to ensure that the properties remain as the Trust intend them to in perpetuity, but crucially outside of the Trust's ownership...

The Trust has the financial weaponry to do this, it just chooses not to do so. It wants YOU to pay. I do not care if the 28 houses are built or not. I do care that the National Trust wants to buy yet another asset, but wants YOU to pay for it. It stinks. Pay the fair price National Trust, WITH YOUR OWN MONEY.

Peter

The local National Trust Committee, and all those associated with them, should resign. Their underhand dealings and back-room 'Jersey Way' dealings are a disgrace. The level of mis-information they have peddled is unacceptable. They do not own the land and well done Deputy Duhamel for running the planning department correctly at long last.

A

At last a Politician (and a Minister at that) who listens to the majority of Islanders. There is no way the Tax Payer should fund the purchase of this Site. If the environmentalists / National Trust, (Alluto et al) wish the land to be purchased, THEY should raise the full £8M - or is that now £14M. Last count this would be around £2000 each!

egalitarian

From my many discussions, the vast majority of local people want Plemont returned to nature.

Those who were not raised in Jersey are a little less enthusiastic for preservation, which , I suppose, is to be expected as Jersey is not so precious to them, especially those who may not remain in Jersey for the rest of their lives.

Peter

That is rubbish. The only ones in favour are the brainwashed that have been fed lies by the tainted National Trust.

egalitarian

Is this supposed to be a logical presentation of your opinion?

I Pasdenom

Egalitarian,

From my many discussions, the vast majority of local people want a big house/a new car/a pony.

And just like Plemont, they don't have the cash spare to buy them.

I don't think there's many people who don't want more open green space to roam in, but that isn't the argument, the argument is whether we want to pay massively for(somebody else) to have this.

Did you ask all those people whether they were willing to put up the cash themselves? If they said yes, then stop arguing and just buy the land yourselves; if they said no, then did you not think that relevant to mention in your post, or did you recognise this,but also that omitting it would make your argument *appear* stronger?

egalitarian

The consensus is that the site should be bought by the island for the public to enjoy, not for one individual or group of individuals to have for their exclusive enjoyment. Unfortunately, I'm not wealthy enough to afford to purchase it but am happy for the states to do so on my behalf using some of the money I have contributed by way of income tax.

I Pasdenom

egalatarian,

"...consensus..."

?

I'm certainly aware of no consensus, quite the opposite.

And the proposal is to buy it for the NTfJ, not the public + the further gift of public land; and it IS the started intention of the NTfJ to limit public access.

So basically your argument, however lovely and well meaning, is not based in reality.

egalitarian

Consensus: the dictionary defines it as 'general or widespread agreement'.

The land that would be gifted to the public is land that would not be allowed to be built on by the developer and the limitation of access would be for wildlife flora and fauna protection. If you ever go to France, take a short trip to Rotheneuf just on the edge of St. Malo where a similar project has been taking place for many years. Limiting access does not mean that large areas will be made inaccessible to the public, just that paths will be created through to stop total degradation of the area.

Paul

Sounds like a load of waffle to me, Pasedom.

I Pasdenom

Egalatarian,

Thank you for the definition of consensus, but if you think that is what I was questioning you've misunderstood; I was questioning that there is any such 'general and widespread' consensus, because that is far from being my experience.

You have also seemingly misunderstood the gifted land I was referring to; I was, quite clearly I thought, talking about the proposed gifting of public land to the NTfJ, not the planning gain as per the, now approved, planning application.

Your comments regarding limitations of access state that it does not mean making large parts of the site inaccessible to the public, and that it just means paths willbe created through the area: Have you even read the proposal you support?

Because the proposal is to close the cliff path and redirect the public around the inland perimeter of the site, which doesn't sound like 'through' the site to me!

Maybe take some time to do the research, then if you still support the proposal, argue with facts, not stuff made up to sound nice despite it misrepresenting the proposal.