Plémont latest: Vote expected on Thursday

A THIRD day of discussions about what to do with Plémont is due on Thursday with a handful of States Members still to have their say on the controversial subject.

The former Pontins camp at Plémont
The former Pontins camp at Plémont

A THIRD day of discussions about what to do with Plémont is due on Thursday with a handful of States Members still to have their say on the controversial subject.

Wednesday saw lively exchanges as the House considered Senator Gorst’s proposal to use public money to buy Plémont.

After the morning session saw amendments from Deputies Southern and Baudains fail and a plan for the National Trust for Jersey to increase the maximum amount they contribute under Senator Gorst’s plan succeed, the main debate got underway at 2.15 pm.

However by 5.35 pm there were still five politicians due to speak and the Chamber adjourned for the day.

Members are due back to the sitting on Thursday morning at 9.30 am with a final vote expected to be called later in the morning.

Full report in Thursday's paper.

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "Plémont latest: Vote expected on Thursday"


Get it in writing from the national trust that if this passes they and their members will be liable to pay for Plemont not the rest of us tax payers who hope the states reject buying this site!!

Mark G

Get it in duplicate! This is a shame waiting to happen. This will run and run though the courts and will cost Jersey tax payers more than the millions quoted.

The land is not Virgin and if it were i too would be trying to stop building on it. Its built on already so the horse bolted and the States did nothing to stop it.

The CM & aCM have a massive conflict of interest and should not be voting along with any other closet NT member in the States.

NO NO NO to buying Plemont


I agree Andy

I say a very big NO to buying Plemont,

DO NOT use our, the tax payers, money for this!

D De Jersey

Not only liable for the site, but the cost to the taxpayer of remediating the site and being sued by the land owner who will be in a remarkably strong legal position.


Whatever happens, building houses isn't what the Island needs. I said it before, it would make more sense to do garden allotments and let unemployed grow and sell vegetables to the Island at a fair price. Better than putting them in a course that just costs money and doesn't help anyone. When the Island is a concrete jungle and food prices go up further people will pray for land to grow but typical Jersey.


Well said Andy

R. Williams

One question that has not been asked is, should planning permission have been granted as the area was designated as an area where no new development should take place?

I Pasdenom

It has been answered by an independent public inquiry.

vivien vibert

No, it should not have been granted. A cart and horses were driven through the Island Plan.

I Pasdenom

vivien vibert,

"No, it should not have been granted..."

In your opinion, but you can't deny that there was a Public inquiry that recognized the application met the requirements of planning.

If you don't feel the planning process is complicated enough or restrictive enough that's your right of course.


I shall be interested to see if States Members take account of the results of the poll on this website, over 60% against States compulsory purchase, which is broadly consistent with Channel TV. I suppose that more young people are voting on line while the attendees at the Town Hall meeting tended to be older (going by the JEP photo - I was not there). It is almost ironic that it appears that the older element keep mentioning future generations enjoyment of the coast, while the younger element are rather more concerned about the finances of the future, along with a new hospital and other projects. What mystifies me is why the NT are now saying that they cannot raise more over time to pay back a loan if they have so many supporters on this.


I will be interested to see if the States Members take note of the support shown at public meetings and on other fora, particularly those that have not been appropriated by a vocal "anti" element, as we have seen on this website.


Older and possibly wiser. Its ironic that the young generation are more concerned about finances at the minute which will eventually get better and are unconcerned about the future of the island for future generations whereas as the elder people are more concerned about the future of the islands countryside that they will not get to appreiciate as long as the younger generation will. Perhaps thats because wisdom comes with age! They have learned from past lessons and dont want the next generation in 30 or 40 years time moaning because there is hardly any open space left on the island due to the decissions of the previous lot.


The lies and spin surrounding the proposed purchase of Plemont headland.

We already own the Plemont headland. We are being gifted the land immediately behind the headland. Plemont will be a fantastic open space. This is about a couple of small fields in the hinterland of Plemont.

So if:-

We can’t afford to fix our schools

We can’t afford to fix our hospital

We can’t afford to look after our old people

We can’t even afford to pay the current pensions

We can’t afford a 20th century sewerage system and we are now 21st century

We can’t afford to take care of our unemployed or their families

We can’t afford to pay our nurses and teacher

Our economy continues to decline and taxes continue to rise.

If we truly can’t afford any of the above then it stands to reason that we can’t afford to buy this small piece of land behind Plemont.

C Le Verdic

We can afford all of these including Plémont.

It's just that personal wealth and minimal taxation is of far greater importance to an already phenomenally wealthy community.

"Jersey, where every man is for himself".

I Pasdenom


And to add to your post;

"...we can’t afford to buy this small piece of land behind Plemont"

And then give it, and the far greater piece of land around it away to a 3rd party, who plans to restrict Public access.

Finding Me;Mo


Rebekah Brookes can now afford to buy Plemont at a compromised figure.

Perhaps we should let her! It might be the very best option.

Berry Picker

As the assessment of the impact of sheep grazing on the Mourier Valley headland overlooked the severe coastal erosion taking place there, and by merrily cutting down the habitat for the creatures that have lived there for centuries to create a sheep pasture, the National Trust, though perhaps well intentioned, are, in their own way, actually destroying some of our coastline themselves. They need to be more accountable for their actions.

If government funds are to be used for the Plemont purchase, what systems will be put in place to ensure that the National Trust will become accountable to the taxpayer, as I believe one of the issues for many people that don't want this purchase to go ahead is that the intention is to just hand it over to a private club.


Plemont should be purchased and returned to NATURE!!!

These so called 'tax payers' who disagree should focus on issues like the annual income support bill which is set to reach £100m next year!

Plemont would be life time investment for the Island community.

Warren J

A total scrapping of benefits and income support would certainly find favour with me.


Well said, I know I would prefer a very small amount of my taxes spent on saving Plemont than all of it going on income support which seems to be the case now. Stop paying out benefits for people that don't work and don't contribute anything, and use it for something more worthwhile like saving our island from greedy developers.



I think income support will exceed £100m next year - think of all those babies born so the parents can get their handouts after 5 years!

I would rather they bought Plemont for £10s of millions rather than borrow to build £200m buildings on the waterfront that will, like many offices, flats and houses stand empty

Grumpy Old Woman

"Plemont would be life time investment for the Island community"

Well, self named 'Enlightened One' you tell this portion of 'the Island community' which you are so keen to speak on behalf of, exactly how returning the site to nature is going to benefit me, or anyone else who happens not to share your self indulgent, tree hugging opinion.

Whether the site is "returned to "nature"" or built on by Mr Hemmings, will not actually affect me or anyone else if truth be told. What will affect me is if the States agree to waste tax payers money in sucking up to Gorst and Bailhache (who by the way are hugely conflicted so should not even be allowed to bring this proposition to the States) and their NT buddies, when there are so many more desrving things to spend the public's money on.


TheEnlightenedOne – Most of Plemont is owned by the public and is in its natural state. The Plemont developer is gifting the remainder and will return this to its natural state. Why do people not understand that whatever happens we will own Plemont. This is about the NT wanting us to buy a few small fields behind Plemont so they can graze sheep.

Perhaps it would be better if our States members were to focus on issues like the annual income support bill which is set to reach £100m next year!


Why was there not the same hoo ha over Portlet?