Thrown away

STATES Members have failed Islanders and have opened Plémont to further damage, the president of the National Trust for Jersey has said.

A computer-generated image of how Plémont might have looked without either the old holiday camp or the new housing estate, which can now go ahead
A computer-generated image of how Plémont might have looked without either the old holiday camp or the new housing estate, which can now go ahead

STATES Members have failed Islanders and have opened Plémont to further damage, the president of the National Trust for Jersey has said.

After months of campaigning to save Plémont and years of work to preserve Jersey’s coastline, Celia Jeune last night condemned the short-sightedness of those States Members who voted against a move to preserve the area.

Chief Minister Ian Gorst’s bid to save the land from development was rejected by the narrowest of margins yesterday and failed by one vote when 25 Members voted against using public money to buy Plémont and 24 voted in favour.

Mrs Jeune said that the National Trust for Jersey was hugely disappointed for the whole Island.

‘We were disappointed that our States Members did not step up to the mark and have the vision to protect our north coast,’ she said. ‘It was the last chance to save the headland and they will be the cause of future damage.’

Full story in Friday's JEP

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required

Comments for: "Thrown away"

Richard - St. Helier

What a misleading headline presenting an opinion as fact. I don't really have a strong view on Plemont, but with an issue so divisive in the community could the JEP not have chosen something more neutral instead of opting for a view expressed by the president of the National Trust for Jersey, which I must assume reflects the JEP's own thinking?


You think that's bad? Try reading the Editorial-Its like a North Korean Government statement.


I agree. The editorial was the most disgraceful act of throwing toys out of the pram that I've ever read. I rather hope the JEP loses considerable readership over that frankly insulting rant.


Complete agree guys.

Cheap plug, but here's my blog post dissecting the piece -

Mark G

Agree the headline is a bit over the top but this is a paper we are talking about, to sell papers you need a visual shocking header. Whilst i agree that the JEP do lean to one side and support certain individuals they, like a business, need to make money and we all know that the traditional paper method of reporting the news is shrinking each year due to other electronic media.


I agree with this. I have never had a strong view on Plemont, just on balance against it because of my concerns about the long term finances. I also noted that Mrs Jeune simply does not 'get it'. She is probably a bit upset that she lost after a very enthusiastic campaign, but from her statements she simply does not seem to understand that most islanders did not want this expenditure to go ahead, given other priorities. One can argue about the %, since many polls are not that accurate, but States members knew (and one told me so) that public opinion was significantly against it. Mrs Jeune's comments ought to be directed at islanders as a whole not States members, but of course that would not come across well: 'You people - you are just narrow minded and ignorant. Stop worrying about your jobs and health. Just think of the countryside.'

St Johnnie

My first thought exactly Richard, that is extremely poor journalism on the part of the JEP and they should be taken to task for it. As for the outcome of the States vote, well done to all concerned for taking the right decision on behalf of the hardpressed Jersey taxpayer on what would have been yet another vanity project on the part of Jerseys establishment.


Regarding the first line of this report - Well I am an islander and i dont feel let down at all !


Well said Kate, we have much more pressing and immediate needs!


Rubbish - The voting in the Assembly reflected the divided opinion of the public. There are good arguments on either side of the coin. I am personally relieved that the Chief Minister & Assistant Chief Minister (both members of the National Trust)have not been given a blank cheque to buy this piece of land in times when public spending on so many other worthwhile projects is being turned down.


I think that the blank cheque part was rather tricky. It would have been a lot better if a price for purchase, plus all the legal costs, plus the cost for clearing up the current mess was all agreed. I might have been less opposed if it were proven beyond reasonable doubt that the total cost were about £6M with the NT paying at least £2.5M.


I think public opinion shows they made the right decision.

The States need to spend money on financial stimulus instead on items which although pretty give no financial benefit - they have already made this mistake once with the Millennium Town Park.


they have already spent tens of millions on financial stimulus. the amount to buy Plemont for generation after generation of islanders to enjoy would have been peanuts compared to overall spending. average the cost out over 50 or a 100 years, which would have been the correct way to look at this,and its a no brainer the cost was worth it and affordable. Look at the aerial view mock up of that headland with nothing on it, and with the development. Its a scandal and how the environment minister voted against is incredulous, he has to resign, his position is untenable. i for one will be writing to my local deputy who voted against to inform him he wont be getting my vote at the next election. This is just a reflection of how local people are now a minority here.

Jerry Gosselin

The problem is that in some political districts, ALL the Deputies clubbed together to support housing on the Plemont site. That was the case in St Helier No. 1 and No.2. At least 70% of St Helier's representatives in the Assembly voted with the millionaire developer. So who do you actually vote for at the next election if most of the people on the ballot paper all tend to vote the same way in the States? Your only viable choice may be to turn up but spoil your paper, which I've had to do a few times over the years.

I agree with you that the amount it would have cost to save Plemont was peanuts by comparison with overall States spending. We now spend £5 million a year just paying the salaries and other expenses of States Members, together with the general costs of running the States Assembly and Scrutiny Panels. So less than three years worth of the money they spend on themselves would have bought Plemont (less than one year if you accept the recent £4 million valuation).


Dear S, Most people do not own a helicopter, so may see things differently. Most people actually want mney to go on items like a financial stimulus. I am sure also that, given public opinion, rather more people might notice that their deputy voted for it contrary to their own opinion, and similarly vote for someone else next time. For example, Montfort Tadier was very 'courageous' given feelings on Le Quennevais school.


s - you are absolutely right. the so-called 'environment' minister first approved the development, riding rough shod, as the editorial says, over the Island Plan.

No one is going to have more school milk or more jobs or more pension because Plemont was not bought - and they would not have had less if it had been because Ozouf had a completely separate plan.

St Johnnie

When you say islanders, dont you mean dog walkers and twitchers, hardly a majority of the Jersey public you'd agree.


I think you are missing the reason why so many members voted against this. Imagine if the NTJ turned up at your door because they liked the location of our house.

The states then asked you what you wanted to sell your house for

They then told you that they would pay you half that, and that they would be using a compulsory purchase order to get you out, so they could then sell your property to the NTJ for half of what they'd payed you.

That is what the house voted against, and all private property owners should be grateful they did, because it is a signal that the population will not tolerate the state trampling over their rights.


What a fatuous argument. You are comparing an inhabited home with an unused derelict eyesore.


Its fatuous idiots like me who will be advancing the same argument when you or one of your relatives has a derelict property which the NTJ fancy buying, but which you don't fancy selling.


Celia Jeune - "states members have failed islanders" - really?

Do you not listen to anything anyone else has to say against this? Most people on the comments pages were totally against the use of public money, so I guess, no you don't!

Your comments over the last days on this subject can only be described as petulant and childish.

This particular islander is relieved that 25 members had the common sense to reject this.

ONce sided

Nice bit of one sided JEP bias as per usual.

Be better if you listened to the majority of your readership Editor and printed their views instead of your old boys matey club support headline.


Um, just look at your own online poll....not thrown away - that money has been saved!!


Saved and still staying where it came from for the next 50 years at least...

Some should play Monopoly. That piece of land would be worth 10 times is value in a 100 years... And if we were in a really really deep one, you would know what to do with the land.

Money doing nothing is dead money anyway...


All I can say is thank goodness this has all been stopped. It was heading to be the biggest farce the island would ever have seen. Thanks to all the members who voted against it and had the courage to stand up for the majority of hard pushed islanders who were horrified at the prospect of an open chequebook being waved around in times of austerity.

It shall be quite telling to see where the NTJ goes with this now, if they genuinely feel so strongly about it maybe they can sell off their properties and have their supporters donate to privately fund this supremely important piece of scrubland.


And now it is a 1.1k s back garden... All right for some.

Is there anybody else who thinks the money from Plemont is going to help Islanders cause it s not. It stays in the bank...

I would have expected the 50% of locals to save it and the other 50% of immigrants to not care about it, meaning an easy win.

But NO, locals are more worried about their wallets than anything else. Nothing is new here "again"... Greedy Island


Agreed Kermit.. I assume that you are French., another reason why I like your comments even more so.. :-)

This was not just about taking a stand for a piece of land it represented much more than that..

8 million is an approximate spend on BENEFITS by way of housing child allowances and the like.. I have my own opinions on why our schools and hospitals need fixing and that is immigration issues who exhaust both those points..


A month by the way..


Once again misleading headlines by the media.

I will spell it out once more for the hard of hearing ………


Is that clear enough for everyone now.


In which case, you can't spell..




Totally agree with Celia Jeune - the States have shown yet again that they have no respect for the natural environment of an Island that they are supposed to represent. The fact that the Environment Minister voted against the proposition shows that he cannot be trusted to protect Jersey's rapidly diminishing countryside.


Good point raindog


Environment Minister voted against: that s unreal....

Parktown Prawn

If that's true he should stand down immediately.

His main concern should be for the environment and not how much it costs....that is the concern of others.

If he had done the job he is responsible for then the voting would have swung the opposite way and the land would have been bought....shockinG!


It's a farce, do you think duhamel actually knows what the word 'environment' means? Firstly he gives planning permission for the houses and then sides with the rich non Jersey resident and his developer to build these houses on one of our last pieces of open coastline left.

This guy should be removed.

small business

Should have bought it yourselves in the first place.


What a load of tosh! You need to drop this now. The reason the land wasn't brought was because the developers are going to do a perfectly good job of returning the land to nature, the houses being built can not been seen from the sea because theya re so far back and are no where near as bad as that current cement ghost town which is there. If your fight had been against wolves Caves or Portlet you would have won but the truth is you just kept claiming that the land needed to be returned to nature and never gave any real facts or reasons - the plans shown to us by the developers of what was being built to replace what is already there was doing that, it wasn't rocket science, the nail in the coffin for me was the JEP page 15 showing the facts and you had a silly letter with random stats on page 17 which made you look like fools. I'm all for looking after Jersey's heritage but that was not it.

St. Clement gardener

Hear hear. Where we're the NT when Portlet war literally ruined? Dandara actually carved out the cliff to accommodate the monstrous development that scars the south coast for ever.

Plemont is a great looking proposal and most of the land is being returned to the public. What is passed by planning is actually as if the NT have won a battle to preserve the area already? If it is so important to return this land to nature, why did no one fron NT think to try 20 years ago when it was first up for sale for a fraction of what it is now worth? They should feel dissapointed in themselves for this failing. The JEP should also be ashamed at the way they reported the story leading up to the vote, almost all the headlines were all about the NT and obviously in full support of the proposal. The only artical I remember that actually supported the vast majorities views was the full page spread the was purchased by the developer!

It does show how the media is very powerful and they almost swung it with their bias articals.


Mrs Jeune, you are deluded if you think States members failed Islanders, none of those that voted against you should feel any guilt at all.

Stop crying and accept the verdict gracefully.


Well in my view the States did the right thing for once!.

Ms Jeune and others like her can still preserve this headland - I am sure the developer would sell the land to them at a fair price.

Put your hands in your own pockets - I'm just glad mine haven't been raided!

Wilson Riou

Mrs Jeune

Ask your membership to raise the money needed to purchase this property themselves, and then you will not have to ask those other long-suffering tax payers who disapproved of this expenditure to finance it.

That way everybody will be happy.


As a member of NTJ I am seriously thinking of leaving as this was no proper consultatiom with the members about this issue.


How can the States have 'failed' Islanders when a democratic vote was taken including at least 3 conflicted members of the Council of Ministers and one absent Minister who would have voted against in any event. The results of your pre-voting poll, and the one you are currently running should indicate to you that the general consensus was that Islanders did NOT want the States to squander contingency funds on this project at this moment in time.

There are far more important issues in the Island at the moment than a piece of land which will be restored from a complete eyesore but still open to wildlife and the flora and fauna that it presently enjoys.

Therefore, for once the members who voted against this proposition took note of Islander's concerns, which is not only refreshing, but let us hope we see/hear more of this type of debating on the next important issue - the ToR's for the Committee of Inquiry.


The vote was so close what are the chances of another round? Or wairing for Senatoe Macleans vote?


There will not be another vote it is too late now but your comments on Clanger Mclean are well noted. In probably the most well discussed and democratic vote taken in the States for as long as I can remember he and his binder did not turn up. Inexcusable. Although he has said he would have voted no but given his binder decides his vote then it would have voted yes and been a tie so probably better he was not there.

Fed Up

Well I am delighted.

How many walk up there?

Not many. I do daily.

It is an eyesore that no one could walk around anyway.

We have no money and to have wasted it on this would have been ridiculous.

Maybe the money the States would have found they can now find to help build a much need Hospital and Police Station

Brian Jacks

I too am delighted. Delighted that finally the tweed waring, range rover driving, old money national trust landowner mob have finally been defeated by the barbour wearing, range rover driving, nouveau riche, pro-business IOD mob. It really has been an almost shakesperain tale of modern day morals in an island that is propped up by the ego's of the wealthy. Power, control and influence all played out to a beying mob.

Personally I've already put my deposit down on the house nearest the headland. I'm going to commission banksy to create a large satrical spray painting of Bailhache, Gorst and Ozouf all looking very angry on the gabel end as part of the percent for art contribution.

Happy Christmas Jersey.


Amusing post, spoiled for a ha'porth of spelling checker.

Who knows what price the houses with the best views will command? Nevertheless I wouldn't put it past the architects to fail to give any of them a sea view, except from the chimneys.


They aren't chimneys, just the usual stuck on plastic ones.

Brian Jacks

And politicians become chimneys pretending to heat the electorate.


Even by the JEP's standards this is the most biased bit of reporting I have seen in a long time. I for one was for the development as it looks like a good one for once however it was clear the island was pretty much divided but the majority of people I spoke to by about 60-40 wanted it to go ahead.

If I may say so the real headline should have been "Government defeated over Plemont" and a picture of Gorst, Sir PB, Ozouf et all coming out into the Royal Square being asked why they could not get their usual Yes men/woman to vote with them.


I hope you are getting a good rate of interest on your deposit, as I doubt if any houses will be built up there anytime soon.

There are plenty of £1m plus properties for sale - just look at each evening's JEP. Many have sea views.

Helen Highwater

Totally agree with Raindog.

As for round2, I think if Alan Maclean had been able to vote he may well have saved the day!!!


If the Environment minister voted against, why Tourism would want to save our coastline....


Personally I have my doubts about the National Trust' £4 million. Mrs Jeune has talked about "up to" and having "pledges". We all know what can happen if someone says "I'll pay you". The figures thrown about by her, Mr Gorst and Sen Bailhache were just to pull the wool over our eyes and to bully. They simply weren't real and I am pleased the proposition failed. By the time lawyers would have finished with it and earned their millions the cost to the island could have near £20 million. I quite like our Chief Minister but being an Englishman and therefore a "foreign" boy he needed to earn being one of the Jersey hierarchy. I believe Sen Bailhache has his own hidden agenda

A huge disaster avoided ! Thank you


Helen - if he had the vote would have been 26-24, he had already said he would have voted "no"

The headline is shockingly biased.


Who says that and who says that he would have actually voted that way?

cant believe my eyes

JEP - do you really not care about your credibility?

The media should present an unbiased view of events. This is a fundamental principle of journalism.

St. Clement gardener

Yes but not the JEP. They have the monopoly so they are not competing for accurate news or views. They write what they want and the chief editor and shareholders basically write their own views


Plemont was thrown away.Something died in the States Chamber yesterday in the name of divisive politics.


I read with interest the comments in this evenings paper made by t

Deputy Le Fondre with regard to his appreciation of unspoilt areas of coastline and greatly look forward to the return of the El Tico site to astute.


And now it is a 1.1k s back garden… All right for a few.

Is there anybody else who thinks the money from Plemont is going to help Islanders cause it s not. It stays in the bank…

I would have expected the 50% of locals to save it and the other 50% of immigrants to not care about it, meaning an easy win.

But NO, locals are more worried about their wallets than anything else. Nothing is new here “again”… Greedy Island


Total misleading by JEP...all people spoken to about this are quite happy the Sates voted against buying this land .....Mrs Jeune collect your members and those who signed in the evening post letter and make Mr Hemmings an offer he can't refuse!!


Toooo late! The offer was there for £4 million and rejected.It's gone! Now it's up to the taxpayer to fund the roads,environment and provision of services for 28 houses for ever and a day!

St Johnnie

Not familiar with Parish rates then!


Are you not, Johnie? Ask at your parish hall- they will be pleased to assist you.


Oooo Kate it's sarcasm.


Well, it is misplaced and it shows a lack of understanding vis-a-vis the parish rates system and its relationship with areas which are administrated for the public by TTS and other departments of the States of Jersey.

Perhaps a little research before posting such sarcasm would have been more sensible than trying to be clever.


SInce Pontins took on the site in the 1960's and paid £375,000 for it or approximately £6.8m in today's money, has the price of land in Jersey actually gone down that much ?????


Realist - 'the offer was there for £4 million and rejected'. You seem to forget that the landowner rejected it because it was a joke. Do the sums - the site is worth up to £20 million, so what do you mean 'the offer was there'? If I offered you £100 for your £5,000 car - and threatened to take it away by law if you refused - I presume you wouldn't be bothered?


Typical Jersey 2012, one of the reasons I left. You have people wanting more houses & people wanting a bit of land with nothing, then you realise that both options don't really help. What Jersey needs our jobs and a future. Could have converted it back to a nice affordable holiday camp for families and kids (Center Parcs), combined it with nature and created jobs but Beans don't think that far these days. Spend a million for a TV advert but don't have a decent place for families OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MYYYYYYYYYYY GOOOOOOOOOOD. You would have french schools & whole classes coming to learn english if there was something decent on the Island..........

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

I would have preferred to see it returned to nature but, if that was not to be, I agree with you: it should be rebuilt as an affordable, modern holiday camp in harmony with the natural environment. People keep harping on about how building a few houses would provide some kind of economic stimulus; what rubbish! At best it would provide a couple of years work for a load of immigrant building-site workers; short term thinking at its worst.


Not entirely sure how the word "nature" became "astute"?

Real Truthseeker

Ms Jeune was disgusting in her response. A very bitter looser in the entire debate. If anything, with such a response it was deserved!

One thing is the NTfJ slick campaign was a major marketing and PR project. The individuals of Jersey rose up above that, and put forward logical and important arguments against it. For once, the individuals of Jersey won!

This was true people power!


RT I do believe this the first time we have agreed on anything. Indeed power to the people.


I suppose you are another financier like Real Truthseeker, who will desert Jersey when it suits you.

Real Truthseeker

JTPO - I do hope this continues. I am appalled at the behaviour of senior so-called ministers (particularly Ozouf). Having been such a major supporter of his, I will be actively engaging in financing and pounding the streets to see others get elected before Ozouf.

Many on here have thought I was a part of Ozouf's spin team. I am not, and next election, I will actively work against him. I am appalled at his poor judgement. I dont' think he realises how he has alienated himself from the key people who would normally vote for him.

Ozouf voting for this proposition woudl never get him a vote from the sandal-wearers, but his anchor voters now are not confident. I have met with many recently, and we are all of the same position. We need to look to others.


My God a nascent Kiwi coup d'etat,RT and his clique showing their colours.It's called politics suck it.If you want to go on the streets with your'clique' there are real issues to fight for but I guess your usual easy stereotyping would have me as a 'sandal wearer'.Reminds me of Geoffrey Palmers private army tv series of many moons ago just not so funny,or maybe lol.


I too am amazed at the JEP's bias. We live in a democracy and the compulsory purchase proposition was not supported in the States Assembly - fact. To turn this into headline that states 'Thrown Away' is totally misleading and very poor reporting. I am also not pleased with the attitude of Celia Jeune - the President of the NT - who tried to put all the blame on one States Member in particular - Roy Le Herrissier - (he also a member of the NT) - for not voting for the proposal. RLeH had the courage of his convictions and saw that this purchase was the wrong thing to do. Finally I read in tonight's JEP that the NT will now not have anything to do with Plemont; they will not be maintaining the land that will be gifted to the Island, instead they are walking away. Talk about spoilt children throwing their toys out of their prams?


Talk about spoilt children throwing their toys out of their prams?

You don't know the half of it, the NTJ are not a pleasant or realistic bunch to deal with.

Not exactly Roy Le Héritage

I find myself siding with 'La Jeune Celia'.

Roy's vote took me by surprise. I would have thought he would have been to Plémont once or twice.

According to he 'strongly resisted over development in the Parish' (St Saviour).

Time the deputies worked for the whole island, not just their own back yard?

C Le Verdic

Interesting to see from that site (above) that my former hero in the States 'participated in moves to limit powers of Planning Minister'.

Obviously that hasn't extended to bolting his stable door.


Is it me. I thought the JEP was there to report the facts not tell us how we should be feeling. We have no money for important issues but we suddenly have a few million quid lying around for this. Where was this money when the holiday village first closed down. Good luck to the developers - do not allow yourself to be bullied. Roll

on the next elections.

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Are you joking? When it comes to issues such as multiculturalism and gay marriage the JEP is always telling us how we should be thinking, and nobody ever complains at all. Why is it that, on this issue alone, everyone is shocked and outraged at their bias?


Perhaps it is this matter that has brought this issue to the forefront of peoples' minds. But here it is so what to do. The island would not be able to support a second paper I don't think that we could choose to buy instead. Perhaps a simple press complaints commission although I shudder at the potential cost. Given that we "consume" the JEP, maybe one for the Consumer Council to get involved in, given that they get so much of our hard earned to produce the occasional newsletter.

Erick le Rouge

financial stimulus : la perle des conneries de la semaine !!!!!!!!


The Town Park cost more than £10 million.I don't recall anyone begrudging the full cost of that to the taxpayer.

R. Williams

It was totally unneeded. I begrudged every penny of my taxes that was wasted when we have many other parks dotted around town.

Those that did not want to spend money saving Portelet from development should be complaining about the Town Park costs which are a lot more than £10 million. If it had been developed, rates would have been paid long into the future to the benefit of St. Helier rate payers.


Well, I gave many years ago the National Trust a campaign in the parish magazine some money, to Le Gris Ventre . And I sent a substantial part of my estate I suppose now I'll get it back, or else I will donate it back to them. I did not want to see more building here. One gets used to anything, and my enjoyment of Plemont was never affected by the holiday camp. I do not know how in future this fake Jersey granite village will sell I hope there will be happy families there, where there are habitations, there is life love, hope.

It will always be a sad loss, like with Queens' Valley.


R. Williams

There are many more people enjoying Queen's Valley now every week than ever walked down it before the reservoir was there.

Plemont has been sold out for money.

Emperor Puffin

I have to say that this headline and content ,followed by an even worse editorial ,has to be the extreme nadir of JEP reportage.

This was a considered democratic decision. The editorial in particular where it calls in effect for the lynching of one Minister and the canonisation of another when the latter lost the vote is worthy of a letter to the PPC.


Thanks to all the States Members who voted against the purchase. Listen to the people that put you in the position you're in more often.


We see a decision from the States of Jersey which declines to purchase land for the people and which endorses an estate of houses which are likely to cost in excess of £1 million apiece.

The developer will be happy, as will the lucky millionaires who will eventually live on the coastal location.

I too am delighted. Although I will not be able to afford to live in such a spledid location, I am pleased for those trust company executives, lawyers and high-flying J category imports who will be able to do so.


Me too, well said. Good luck to them.

City Boy

The real culprits in the destruction of the north coast are those who approved the building of the holiday camp in the first place. You can't change history and it would have been wrong to use States money in these austere times to correct a mistake from the past.


When the holiday camp was approved , none of that Waterfront, Portlet, incinerator were built.

I heard that the camp was a good thing at the time. It served his purpose well...

Now was the time to balance it out. It s all about give and take. If we keep taking, one day or another, there won't be any green spaces left.

Captain Fantastic

So the Jersey NT ran a campaign "Love Plemont" with an iconic puffin & collected £2 million for this area. The purchase of the land does not materialise because of lack of funds, so they divorce themselves from the area and the puffin, it would appear from their reaction they are no longer concerned about conserving the area and the surrounding wildlife because of their failings, why did they waste all this time and money in the start?


Suppose they get involved, something is not right and the developers blame NT.

Just think of Tom and Jerry or D.Cameron and N.Clegg. They are doing a great job together...

Name Down already for one house.

What a complete bosh up yet again by our well PAID politicians who have no desire or guts to protect what is left of the Islands' Heritage. Greedy commerce ruled here and our next generations will never be able to experience the wonders of such a unique spot of the island. Each of the houses will be out of the average persons pocket so no benefit to the community just more developments that are not required. No lessons have been learned by our dear states members for the Portlet bay monstrosity, Radisson, Castle Quay to name but a few. Maybe one day St Helier will be a big city like Dubai with a very large population to cover the additional burden that the tax payer already has from the benefit system. When will the states use the Raining Day fund? I think this would have been the right time. I can't wait to see sky scrapers in St Ouen! The introduction of GST did the states listen, no they did not so I doubt very much that this decision had any bearing on concern for the electorate of the Island.


There has been some criticism of Minister Alan MacLean for not being present for the vote

One shouldn't forget that there might be a valid reason for this.

Under the circumstances he did what he could and at least let the public know that he would have voted against

Gino Risoli

Land is land and plemont will be there for ever.

Waiting millions in an economic downturn suggests stupidity.

R. Williams

The biggest waste of money was making the Town Park when there are many alternative parks in and around town.

Edmund Blampied

You should all be ashamed of yourselves . Congratulating a bunch of weak petty minded politicians who like you can only see the short term benefit of not taking this once in a lifetime opportunity to save this land for future generations.

You know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Congratulations now you and the 77 year old multi millionaire who dosent already have enough money to take to his grave can enjoy looking at the millionaires row that will appear at Plemont.

Shame on the lot of you.

I Pasdenom

I think those that are arguing against the approved planning proposal based on the person making it rather than the the proposal itself should be ashamed of their own prejudices.

The fact is P.90 would've restricted the Public's access far more than anybody I spoke to realised, and if people like Dep.Tadier and Sen.Ozouf's speeches during the debate were genuine and sincere they clearly didn't read/understand the proposal, based on the obvious flaws in the arguments they made.


Surely the weak petty politicians were those who meekly followed their (unofficial) leader, even though the public and all logical arguments screamed out for a vote against?


The Head line is dreadful as it clearly shows the JEP's bias towards the proposed compulsory purchase.

A more correct headlining could have been 'Public saved from Financial disaster' or 'Catastrophe at Plemont avoided'. These of course reflect my bias against the scheme from word go.

I guess the JEP is lamenting the loss of future stories which would have come about had the potential catastrophe been allowed to unfold especially the witch hunt on whom to have blamed!


Its a real shame that Mr Hemmings doesn't have the same philanthropic generosity as other Islanders, thinking in particular of Mr Kirch and his £100 gifts every year.

Mr H is an extremely wealthy man. What a wonderful legacy he could leave the Island by selling Plemont to the States at cost price. He wouldn't be out of pocket, he doesn't really need a few million quid from the development.

I am sure that would be the outcome every Islander would welcome. Perhaps the NTFJ could campaign on this basis now, you never know, it is Xmas!!


Built them quick Mr H. I have always wanted to live there. Les Marais over looks the south coast. Knock it down and save it for the future generations.

I Pasdenom


"... selling Plemont to the States at cost price..."

Maybe if the States had offered to do this before acting at the request of the NTfJ to try and force him to hand it over at a possible loss.

If I were the owner sitting down to even start discussing any agreement to sell would be difficult, as I don't think the States can be trusted to negotiate honestly.

The bullying attitude already displayed my have lost any such chance that there might have been.


Although I am a bit late with my comments, I really do believe the States of Jersey have missed a wonderful chance to purchase land for our descendents. It seems to me the Environment Minister has let the Island down by granting permission for the houses. OK, the Site had existing buildings, so that did create a problem for him, however, even if a refusal for development had been granted, there was a chance an Appeal might not succeed. What is the betting that if and when work commences on site, there will be an amended application seeking additional dwellings, or extensions to those already approved ?


What a laugh no tax payers money to be spent on Plemont, what the States voted for was exactly that. The taxpayer will now have to foot the bill for maintaining the headland for ever more. So what will be the cost of that?Could Deputy Lewis from TTS let us know please as he voted against the purchase.

The future

Has anyone had a good look at a satellite picture of Jersey recently, the quarry on the north coast is literally carving away chunks of Jersey.

Do us a favour, purchase the quarry fill it with the toxic ash and spend tsome money on north St Helier.

One third of the population of Jersey live in St Helier, more money needs to be spent making our town a modern commercial Center for Jersey people to be proud of into this century.

You want to make a real impact on our countryside and how green Jersey is try compulsory purchase a golf course, put more trees, grass and public areas in St Helier, make people driving into St Helier pay a congestion charge, reduce the cost of public transport, knock down derelict green houses and return them to open fields.

Buying plemont headland is kind of thing people who donate to the donkey sanctuaries vote for, as they step over the homeless in the car parks.

C Le Verdic

'make people driving into St Helier pay a congestion charge'

Now I see how things like congestion charges come about. Pro Christmas voting turkeys ask for them!

Jersey has such impressive natural and historical attributes that it needs to be turned into a heritage site or national park as soon as possible.

The obsession with encouraging more and more immigrants and development to provide and service the tax avoidance/evasion industry is ruining a unique environment.

We can only hope that our motherland, the UK puts a rapid end to this evil industry and also takes steps to revise the Jersey legal system, the quirks of which have allowed this sorry situation to evolve and the greedy to enrich themselves well beyond the dreams of avarice.

Surely the lawyers etc. who are the prime movers of the evil industry could have brought about legislation that could ensure that all the associated foot soldiers remained somewhere like London while a chosen few in Jersey act nominally and sign the documents?

Didn't they see the documentary about the former Sark residents doing exactly that from Nevis in the Caribbean? I can't imagine the people concerned in that 'lark' want Nevis spoiled by a huge influx of extra workers.

the future

I cant think of a worse idea than turning Jersey into a National Park or Heritage site.

This Island needs an economy large enough to support, an education system, hospitals, a social security system and general infrastructure.

There should be a way for people who want none of the benefits of our economy to opt out of receiving them.


The future - Thank you for a refreshing view from outside the box. I was just starting to feel symptoms of Plemontitis and this woke me up. We need you in government !


It would come as no surprise to me if some of those who were up in arms about the development have now put their name on the list for purchase one of the houses. This is how it often works

sean bean

It is no wonder that the JEP's circulation is falling by the day when you publish such biased headlines and editorial, I suggest that the 'workers' at the JEP take the Editor to task or you will all be out of a job soon!

Gino Risoli

The main way in which the jep distorts information is by the silence of many important topics. It is not what it said or written that is killing this island it is the conspiracy of silence.


It has been thrown away; really some of you don't have the foresight, on what a travesty this is.

We are 3 degrees from the polar Ice caps melting, you are building on something that needs preserving for all the correct ecological reason, not more ozone destroyers,

You will not need to worry if the polar Ice caps do melt, as you will not have an island to worry about!!!

All fools

And The only vote from me to St.Brelades too will be going to M.Tadier the only one who had the foresight

sean bean

Really? and do you think that this purchase would stop development elsewhere from occurring or that the States may decide to build on some land elsewhere to recoup the Plemont spend?

I can see the headline now....

'Plemont development melts the polar ice cap, rising sea level floods whole Island...except for homes on high land such as err....Plemont'!

This could be a great angle for the developers!


Foresight is the claim of fools. Methinks you do not have a clue what you are talking about.

I presume that the reason why Tadier asked his extemely pertinent question - how much is too much - was because he needed that answer before deciding to support the CM's proposition. He didn't get an answer to his own question yet supported it anyway. No, I don't understand that either.


Remember Queens Valley and the protests against that being flooded! Most local residents hadnt even heard of it at the time and if they had they certainly didnt visit it in any way shape or form. It's certainly popular now and the flooding of the valley is now a distant memory.

Plemont will turn out the same. Most people moaning about it havent even been there I should think. Once the holiday camp is demolished, it will be replaced by a few nicely designed houses which will be hardly noticable and certianly more pleasing on the eye than whats there now and furthermore there will areas of the headland that are currently no-go areas.


When the polars ice caps melt there will be no Jersey! Property prices will then be at rock bottom.

Yes capitalism and its twin consumerism are doing a good job aren't they. So much cheap tat sold at a profit, used for a few weeks then its off to landfill or the incinerator. What a mess.

Peter I much prefered Queen's Valley pre-flooding. It was one of the few, or maybe the last valley that hadn't be over developed.

Also the flooding of the valley was opposed by a large number of people who wanted it maintained as it was for posterity.

Had it not been flooded then the rampant development we have witnessed over the last 30 years would have been limited due to a lack of water resources. This would have been a massive benefit to the island as far as I am concerned. I believe this was the major reason behind flooding it.

A few nicely designed houses with wind swept gardens. A very exposed place to own a house. Not my cup of tea. As the access is pretty dire, I presume the road is going to be widened to accommodate the extra numbers of 4x4's who will be using it!

4bi4 owner Eh!

If the lane coped with a few thousand holiday makers in 'H' cars I'm sure it will cope with the residents of 28 homes...even if they are in 4x4's :-)


Really! If some are like the ones I meet on country lanes it will be a right laugh.

C Le Verdic

what's the betting that they'll make it look like a private estate access road to frighten off all but the most determined outsiders?


It WILL be a private estate road! A local family is divided over selling that adjoining long narrow field to the South on the bend, quitely to the developers.They need it for access and no doubt they got the nod from our Environment Minister.

I Pasdenom

C Le Verdic,

"what’s the betting that they’ll make it look like a private estate access road to frighten off all but the most determined outsiders?"

Nil, no chance.