Plemont: 'It's not over yet'

THE fight to save Plémont may not be over yet, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache has said.

Senator Sir Philip Bailhache at Plémont
Senator Sir Philip Bailhache at Plémont

THE fight to save Plémont may not be over yet, Senator Sir Philip Bailhache has said.

Senator Bailhache, who was a leading supporter of Chief Minister Ian Gorst’s bid to buy the land and proposed it in the States, has confirmed that he and several others are still trying to find a way to preserve the site. It is understood that talks have taken place about a possible route forward.

Although he would not be drawn on the specific elements of the discussions, Sir Philip said: ‘A large number of people remain very concerned about the loss of the Plémont headland and discussions are taking place between a number of interested parties to see if there’s an alternative means of saving it.’

Meanwhile, architect Paul Harding, who designed the scheme for 28 homes on the site of the former Pontins holiday camp, has said that he plans to start clearing the site and building the homes in the New Year

Comments for: "Plemont: 'It's not over yet'"

Teresa

Spend the money resurfacing some roads instead! This man acts like a spoiled child "I want I want"!

the thin wallet

quite true , the roads the pavements of town , the drainage or lack of. and the old bal tab site , is a shining example of returning a site to nature , complete with dog dirt .

we could go further how about the prospect of jobs for the unemployed ? the hospital?

affordable housing? a reduction in taxation of the ordinary person, whilst other cock a snook at the ordinary person on this fine island . happy new year folks , expect much of the same .

St clement gardener

Can someone set up an independent Facebook voting/like page that we are all able to like/vote on? This could allow the people to speak and vote openly. It will give us all a chance to put our thoughts and views out there for the politicians to see rather than having to repeatedly repost on the various one sided Jep articles that keep on popping up. Just leave your name, parish and write your thoughts on what the money could be better spent on......

We should call it: Don't buy Plemont and use the money for more deserving projects! - the official site

I would do it but I don't really use Facebook much and would not know the best way to go about it. The link could be reposted every time another article appears on JEP or Channel Online. One person set it up properly and we all follow it. Let social media speak!

Just an idea- what do you all think?

the thin wallet

most of the internet based sites that offered voting. showed a big no to the use of public funds .

the public often voice their opinions on where the public purse is spent , but rarely does it go where the public wants or percieves it needs to go.

boogybear

Yes it is over Sir Philip, with public money at least. Lets see the thousands of supporters donating their hard earned to buy the land back!!!! Put your money where your mouths are.

Jerri Libreornot

I now realise that I had voted for the wrong person in the last election.

Is Sir Philip now seriously trying provide a mechanism to circumvent democratically achieved decisions ?If so the next stage will be that I won't get the opportunity to make the mistake again! At least that will mean that I won't get the government I deserve ,I suppose.

C Le Verdic

Had I been able to vote, I might have done so on the strength of Sir Philip's support for Plémont. I wouldn't have done so on the indepedence issue. Many obviously have been attracted by his stance on independence, which has put him in this strong position. For the while.

I expect a few others will now be changing sides like you, Jerri!

Rentokil

How would you feel about independence if you realised it would enable us to have a proper immigration policy and to stop us being flooded with immigrants who do not deserve to be here and are preventing local youngsters shine.

Think maybe its time everyone grew up a bit and stopped slinging mud tbh!!

This Island has not got a cats chance in hell if people don't stop slinging mud and see the potential and move on. Things won't get any better otherwise. No, I'm no turncoat, just realistic.

Hell everyone makes mistakes, but why is everyone hell bent on making things more difficult than they need to be?! No I don't agree with the way a lot of things are over here, but wood for trees people!!

C Le Verdic

I'm not keen on independence. I think that in going way lies even more reliance on highly questionable quirks in the law to earn a living. That's what has got us overpopulated with finance and legal personnel and their hangers on. It has also created unrealistic expectations on earning power, which cannot last.

I would rather see Jersey as an offshore county of the UK, populated mainly by people who really appreciate the island for its physical and cultural attributes rather than its legal and financial perks and who are prepared to put up with a little inconvenience and extra expense in return for the privilege.

It would probably still be run mainly by money hungry businessmen, but where isn't? That will only change through education and evolution.

Perhaps the shining youngsters should get out and see the world for a while. Then they can decide if Jersey really was the best place for them.

Katie

Oh well, with Sir Philip being a trainer lawyer and advocate, at least if these 'alternative means of saving it' as he puts it should need any legal advice and investigation, it wont cost the island a penny to research as he is personally behind saving the headland !!!!

COM-Mentator

Maybe he and some of the other millionaires who are our states members should put their own cash forward?

Thought not. Very good at spending sorry wasting other peoples money.

Sanity

This is NOT about the loss of Plemont headland - just a couple of fields behind the Plemont headland. We have schools operating out of portacabins; a hospital is crisis; pensions being cut and many other pressing social issues that our government refuse to address on the grounds of “we have no money”.

The welfare of our children, the sick and the elderly must be put ahead of buying the National Trust a couple of extra fields to graze their imported sheep.

People need to wake up and find out for themselves exactly what the National Trust want to spend so much of our money on and not rely on the spin and half truths that have so far plagued this debate.

Paul

I hope Sir Philip does have a Plan B.

Despite many of the anti-green people who voted against us buying Plemont we should continue with this fight.

Neil

"Us" and "We" being who exactly? Do you mean the minority of politicians and members of the public who wanted this purchase to go ahead? Also you call people "anti greens", I take it then that you are totally self sufficient ie:

Do not use a car

Recycle everything

Generate your own electricity

And basically do not use anything that has been produced by a nasty fossil fuel burning factory.

Response when ready please...

Scrutineer

Be careful; that is not the issue. The States members, from across the political divide voted against it, only just, for a range of reasons, including other priorities and the idea of not giving the Government a blank cheque (since there was no real clarity on the total cost - and a few silly statements). There might have been a few who did not like the way that it was handled politically: the appearance of the Chief Minister acting as Sir P's puppet. I would guess that there were few States Members, if any, who would not like to preserve Plemont. So, the one thing it was not is an 'anti-green' issue.

You should not see it as a fight. I think that this was also part of the problem. The National Trust were unwise in turning it into one, and then having a tantrum when they lost the vote. I like Plemont beach. I go there quite often and I am very keen that the site is improved. However, I am absolutely clear that I want to know the total cost to a reasonable degree of certainty: purchase, clear-up, and any fees. I would prefer it to return to nature, but not for over £10M, perhaps, since the planned development is not too bad, and at a higher price there are other priorities. I believe that there are many people thinking like me, so let us all see both sides of it. There are, however, a lot of people who are strongly opposed, whatever the cost. They, also, are not 'anti-green'; many have never been to Plemont and they are not interested. They are interested in expenditure on other priorities, such as Quennevais school, for example.

James

This isn't a fight to "save" Plemont, it's not being lost. This is a fight to spend Other People's Money on their preference for the site, and that's why Other People are against the proposal. Why doesn't the NT get this?

Having said that, if it is a new plan that doesn't involve a penny of Taxpayers' Money then good luck to them.

James Wiley

I do not support the purchase of the land simply because the developer made a bad investment and so should lose his shirt, if you make a bad investment you lose money.

Bailing out banks did not work, so why will bailing out developers?

I cannot believe they gave planning permission to the site.

I also do not want the bit of land in the middle of the development that the developer wants the States to maintain for him but to which the public will not go because it is in the middle of an estate of 28 houses. Let the buyers of the properties pay to maintain it.

However, I do hope that the land is returned to nature because that is the best option for the future.

I also hope it is the National Trust for Jersey who manage it, because they are far more efficient that the States of Jersey.

I do not believe that those 28 houses will ever be built, there are far too many sites with planning permission which are not being built on already because the developer knows they will not get their money back.

When the new £200,000 homes are built that will be a real kick in the groin for the Jersey property market a lot of people are going to lose everything, I can't wait, but there is no way I would support the States of Jersey bailing out the losers.

luap

"When the new £200,000 homes are built that will be a real kick in the groin for the Jersey property market a lot of people are going to lose everything, I can’t wait"

What a lovely person you must be James Wiley

James Wiley

Bad investments mean you lose your money... that is the way of the world.

I want to see the person who gambled on Plemont get his just desserts and so too all the people who made bad investment decisions and bought houses in Jersey after 2006.

Only once all those bad investments are washed out of the system will the economy recover.

Those who made bad decisions should not be protected from the consequences of their actions, even if they are the majority.

Gem

Good for him. I'd love to see him succeed in righting this wrong but I doubt he's got much chance in this backward thinking, greedy little place.

Beanabroad

Don't like Jersey? Feel free to leave any time you want and go back to whereever you came from and enjoy the standard of living there.

Gem

As I'm a JerseyBean through and through and married to someone the same I'm already where I'm from. I just look forward to making my escape one day when elderly relatives no longer need our care so don't go making ignorant assumptions.

xfarmer

Use your own pockets if you wish to grow weeds, NOT the public purse

wan

It's very simple ! Mr Bailhache and his wealthy friends should stick their hands in their pockets, buy the land from Mr Hemmings for £14 to £16 million and donate it to the people of Jersey. Or abide by the democratic decision and the opinion of the majority of the population which is to leave it alone

Sage

Maybe that's exactly what he has in mind. The negative posts in this thread say it all about this debate generally and much of today's local political debate.

What's so appalling about wanting to keep a beautiful part of the Island's coastline clear of development (particularly after the debacles of Portelet, Fliquet etc?

Clearly the use of tax payers' money to fund it is something that warranted political debate and that debate was won by those who wanted to save the money at all costs. That's democracy, I understand those with economic concerns (up to a point) and the debate was, at times, a good one, but my passing judgement on the debate is that (a) if you weighted the votes of the voting States members by reference to the public votes that got them into the States in the first place, those voting against the proposition (v few senators) would actually have lost by some margin; (b) some, I suspect, simply saw an opportunity to bash the establishment, and let the island go hang (kudos to the likes of Tadier who, in my view, showed more vision and less cynicism.) These are just my views of that debate. I may be wrong.

The Island can't defend itself. the Island is beautiful but getting uglier every year. We had a chance to stop the rot and avoid another inappropriate development precedent on our beautiful coastline. We missed it. For the record, I'm not an NT member but am lucky enough to have been able to pledge some money to the campaign. For once I saw an opportunity to make a difference.

Democracy has spoken in terms of the use of tax payers money but I simply cannot understand the views of those on this site who criticise Senator Bailhache for trying to find another way. If he still wants my pledge, he has it. More vision, less cynicism, please.

peddler

This article complately tells you all that you need to know about this man.

He and his cronies were beaten fair and square yet he cannot accept it.

He is a despot who will take Jersey back to the Dark Ages if you let him. He has too much power and influence over our puppet of a Chief Minister, his hands are dirty yet he remains untouchable. Why are so many true Jersey people blinded by him?

I hope the 18000 fools that voted for him at the last election are ashamed of themselves.

R. Williams

Just because you have shortsighted views, you think that you can call the farsighted amongst us, fools.

You need to think about more than what everything will cost in money terms. People like you would sell your grannie to save a £1.

peddler

Farsighted? Please, are you real?

Another one of ballaches brigade shouting sour grapes at a fair democratic decision.

Put your hand in your pocket and use your own money if you feel so passionate.

Taxpayers money should never be wasted on this non starter of an idea.

The vote was fair and square, the public were in the majority against this so suck it up and move on.

R. Williams

Actually, I'm not one of Bailhache's brigade, but a Jerseyman who is fed up with the despoilation of my island that is taking place because of the whims of you non-Jersey people who put price before the quality of life.

If you don't appreciate the beauty of the island, go and live in some inner city slum where the cost will be cheap.

B

The decision went to the states and a democratic vote took place. If a deal now goes ahead that involves any public money then surely that is against the law?

We have bigger issues in Jersey to deal with than wasting money on this !

True Jerseyman

Still find it incredible that ANY true Jerseyman would mock someone for trying to save our north coast from the clutches of a multi-millionaire developer. Staggeringly myopic thinking.

Not normally a big fan of Mr Bailhache but on this occasion he has my full backing.

the thin wallet

as a jerseyborn ,jerseyman. i am happy that the place will be cleaned up 2/3rds back to nature.

at no cost to the taxpayer.

as a jerseymam , i know a bargin when i see one.

True Jerseyman

Bear in mind that as it currently stands 1/2 of the site is ALREADY 'back to nature' so in effect we are only gaining 16% of the 'natural' land….if you can call 'natural' a few areas surrounded by houses that will inevitably encroach on this land in years to come.

The true bargain was to be had taking the National Trust's 3 million and adding another 3-4 million to secure one of the island's most unique and beautiful areas.

the thin wallet

the public purse should be locked to the fritterers and wasters.

the welfare of the islanders should come first.

if we continue as we do. then you may well that daft steam clock on ebay, ship worldwide of course.

P Le Mont

Your concern for the welfare of 'islanders', TW, would be more laudable if most of them actually were islanders and not merely opportunist incomers who don't give a monkey's about culture or heritage and are only here for what suits them.

True islanders are among the ones who appreciate the rugged beauty of Plémont, albeit temporarily blighted by an eyesore.

I agree wholeheartedly with True Jerseyman who, indeed, surely must be one, like Sir Philip.

It is the way in which so many are defending the questionable rights of a non resident developer which puzzles me the most.

roombay42

Thin Wallet: it appears that the only criterium of importance to you is the price. Remember, 'cheap' does not mean 'bargain'.

Davey West

If Sir Phillip cares about what is wrong with Jersey, and funding to purchase and not steal through compulsory purchase the Plemont headland, then this is an alternative that has thus been overlooked to raise the funds.

Alan Maclean recently told the States that the JFSC could afford to take banks to court as they had £6.5 million in the bank. Jersey Development Ltd ( the old Webb ) is sitting on a big pot of money also.

The question is why are these Government quango's allowed to hold large capital amounts ( and how much is stuffed away by States departments ) that could be used to honestly purchase assets for the public.

Bingo.

gino risoli

there is equal and those that have sat near the right hand of God dishing out judgements. it is of course a God dellusion that must be removed fron societal thinking.

Wilson Riou

Gino

Monkey been at the keyboard again?

evelyn

what language is this

Andy

Bailhache and his wealth friends should buy this if they want ....for heavens sake lets move on from this ...far more important things hitting the headlines like unemployment...people losing their homes etc...so Bailhache I was one who voted for you in the last elections so start getting to work on far more important issues as so far I've been very disappointed !!

DD

Does he not understand the concept of democracy?

peddler

No he does not and herein lies the fundamental problem with this man and his sycophants.

Speechless

Grow up Baillache, you are acting like a spoilt child who hasn't got his way! The states have voted , it's called a democratic decision , this really is quiet embarrassing and could be your downfall....

Bo

For gods sake, I thought this subject had ended, some are quite happy to continue flogging a dead horse!!!!!!!

jerseythepartiesover

Demacracy has long been dead in Jersey. Him and his mates lost the vote but no in the new year there will be another vote when only 2 weak members need to "talked into changing their minds" and the rich elite win again.

Surprised & Disappointed

I am somewhat surprised to find Sir Philip spending his time (the time we as taxpayers are paying for) seeking alternative ways to achieve what was democratically voted against.

Please Sir Philip spend your time more productively, in my opinion, and seek ways to ensure this lovely Island of ours stops sinking further into the mess we are already in.

The one positive thing I can think of is that we only have another 2 years until the next elections .....

Not surprised or disappointed

"Please Sir Philip spend your time more productively, in my opinion, and seek ways to ensure this lovely Island of ours stops sinking further into the mess we are already in"

Isn't that exactly what he's doing?

Discombobulated

Just think if the States had bought this land when it first went up for sale we would have saved a fortune.

How many hundreds of hours have been given over in the States on this subject !!!!!

God can the leaders of this island ever make a decision without first putting it out for UK consultation and then following it up with negative debation

Carole, St Sav

This is making me angry - For crying out loud Senator Bailhache, democracy has spoken - take it on the chin and get on with real issues affecting the lives of people of Jersey. Stop wasting our hard earned tax money on your pet schemes and get on with what we voted you in to do!

Slawek

Want to 'save' Plémont - of course, not a problem Sir Philip.

Just please use YOUR OWN money, not ours.

Sad Sad Sad

How very disappointing that our "beloved" knight cannot appreciate the democratic process. Maybe that is only for the poor not the priviledged! Time the ordinary Jerseyman woke up and elected people who will properly represent them. Or perhaps those who have been should think again and stop pursuing personal interests? Shame on you!

wan

Sen Bailhache has lost the plot and doesn't like it !

A. Tennant

Isn't that 28 plots?

Perhaps the developer should be required to put some social housing on the site - as per the Island Plan. Not sure the North of the Island had any at present?

Blow with the Wind

Social housing in the north of the island? God forbid! Anyhow, there is no room with all the puffins, horses etc. We don't want any of those people spoiling the place for us.

Branchage

There is another issue that was raised by the Plemont debate and this was the development cost put forward of £21.4 million to develop the site and giving rise to a £4 million valuation. This gives a figure of over £750,000 per property to develop and includes a 15% developers margin. If you strip out the developers margin, finance costs, contingency and sale costs the figure is £15.8 million. The figure for the site clearance and asbestos removal is £1.1 million so lets exclude that and it gives us a figure of £14.7 million or £525,000 build cost per dwelling. I don't believe this is realistic or even close and suggests either a lack of integrity that this valuation was put forward or indicates that the States are totally incompetent in dealing with any major capital project !! Therefore it could be construed that the council of ministers were lucky that they lost this proposition.

ILS

Nobody ever said no to this man. He has grown used to having his way. He can't leave it alone. He is a stuck record. At a time of severe economic austerity his views are completely out of touch. He is making a fool of himself rather in the same way as he did with his National Gallery project. It's as if he views politics as a means to his own personal ends. I shall not vote for him again.

Ex bean

For goodness sake just build the tiny development of unobtrusive houses and be done with it.

s

So SPB, against massive public opinion, still wants to go ahead with this ludicrous waste of money. Bit like the EU eh, just keep voting till we get the right answer! If he wants it then let him buy it with his own money, not my ever increasint taxes.

roombay42

So you think that if a person believes that an error has been made, in this case the granting of permission to build at Plemont,they should just give up the cause.

Sir Philip believes in the saving of Plemont from continued despoilation, as do many of us, and is justified in continuing to fight to remedy the situation.

I presume that if you think that something is wrong, you just don't bother about it.

s

As it happens I don,t think that homes should have been built here but what I do strongly disagree with is that he, and other muppets believe that we should be spending this much money on retaining a very small piece of land. The damage has been done from previous years and it appears developers are unstoppable. On this occassion it has to go ahead but change laws or whatever to stop this happening in the future. I mean, if planning permission had been refused because of some form of re-zoning would the developer be keen to have held on to the land. No, they would have sold it on cheap and put it down to a bad business decision. Some may say because there was a building here previously then they cannot be stopped. Ok give them plans for a holiday village. I also think developers should be made to tidy up areas awaiting development. Oh, anf finally, pleeease don,t go ahead with public money on the esplanade car park / office block. There,s not enough island-wide demand hence other part-filled offices

roombay42

I've got to agree with you re the Esplanade car park.

James

I can't recall the last States vote that was unanimous. Thus, at every vote, there will be States Members that believe the House has made a mistake. Can you imagie what would happen if every politician kept campaigning, kept voting, kept taking up States' time on every vote they didn't agree with? The whole machine would come to a halt. Surely having had a three day debate and a vote, all politicians should now focus on the six priorities that have been set out, not least managing our economy through extremely difficult times.

Shards

The whole 'Plemont' issue has become very tedious.

Gorst and Bailhahce - Go and govern your island and concern yourself with the real and pressing issues.

If so many people want to return Plemont holiday camp to nature, why don't they buy it with their own money? They can then fence off the plot concerned and make some pass cards that allows only the collective purchasers to go and stand in the area for as long as they wish.

Sorted! Now let's move on.... PLEASE.

roombay42

You fail to tell us what you think the real and pressing issues are.

You may be bored with the Plemont debate, but we who care about Jersey are still hoping that the previous mistake is corrected.

booger

I care about Jersey, but please do not speak on my behalf. I have just been royally reamed by the taxman and absolutely object to one penny of my hard earned money being spent on this site. I am assuming this statement is heading towards private funding to buy the headland, if not shame on this time wasting idiot and his well healed cronies. I too thought this guy had a grip on reality so voted for him.....FAIL.....

There are more pressing issues to deal with than a "nice to have" and it is embarresing as an island to be seen to be wasting more time on this subject.

Shards

@roombay42

Indeed, I have failed to enlighten you, but I'm quite sure you are capable of discovering the real and pressing needs of this Island. Please do not misunderstand me; I care very much about Jersey.

The decision you do not agree with is not a mistake, just a decision you don't like.

I have provided a solution to your 'problem', perhaps now you would care to suggest the best way to fund a new hospital, school at Les Q, continual finance sector threats, pension time bomb, record unemployment etc. etc...

(Damn, I've helped you out now)

Phil

Great! Let see Sir Philip and the National Trust put in a legal offer and buy the site, with the support of those Islanders that signed the petition. Say £4,500,000 less the NT contribution, this is only £1,500,000 between 10,000 people/shareholders at only £150 each....no problem. (or were they lying about the cost?)

Still speechless

Wouldn't it be wonderful to read this headline:

"Sen Baillache comes up with master plan to reduce unemployment

And pull Island out of recession"

This Island is drowning and he cannot or will not see it.

Do something useful with your time instead of following this obsession! Or face the voters wrath....

Observer

Has Senator Bailhache developed a short-term memory problem? On 16 December he announced live on air:- "Unless some white knight emerges to buy the Plemont site, it's probably the end".

What happened since then, maybe too many festive spirits? So please put up and shut up on this subject, a democratic vote has been taken against Taxpayers money being diverted to Plemont for the 2nd time in two years. Your 2011 Manifesto promised "The government takes money from the public in tax so as to produce the revenue necessary to fund essential public services. There is no other justification for tax." Repeat, no justification for spending tax on non-essentials like Plemont.

Respect this democratic decision and please refocus on your elected role as our Foreign Minister. That is far, far more important to the future well being of all Islanders and our descendants.

A

During the debate, the proposition was described by a States Member as a Mugabe style landgrab. With this latest statement by PB, it certainly appears that he is unable to accept a democratic result and wishes to turn this Island into a dictatorship!

True Jerseyman

How could buying the land off the developer at its true market value possibly be construed as a 'Mugabe style land grab?' Eh?

Cozzie

Because it would be a compulsory purchase.

Look at it this way. Imagine I take a liking to a possession of yours, your car or your house. You don't want to sell it to me but I use legal means to force you to sell it to me, at the true market value.

Am I to assume you would have no problem with that?

Eh?

Realist

Plemont seems to be an outdated side line to some abjectly prejudiced socially divisive views.Is the environment the preserve of what Connetable Dan Murphy described as "the chattering classes" and "the establishment"? Plemont was the one chance to put past wrongs to right and preserve this vast and only unique area of coast and heathland for all at a cost that was partly underwritten by members of the NTJ,who have been instead scorned by some for their efforts as wellied dog walkers with 4x4's.I hope that they withdraw their offer and no I’m not a member.The one vote in the States against was no victory.Take a walk to compulsory purchased far smaller Noirmont headland.Imagine three clusters of 28 ersatz granite faced cement block £900,000 houses and of no benefit except to an Isle of Man developer.Then look across to Portelet and see the result of the policy of the right to build on past mistakes.The Plemont holiday camp was bought as a job lot by the developer, along with several others in the UK.The States therefore had no choice but to debate compulsory purchase. Those that huff and puff about schools and hospitals should think about the current £2 billion budget, the largest ever to be spent on social projects and consider what returning something so precious and unique means for the future generations of our island.And no, it's not about putting 28 houses there and congratulating the developer for his generosity in returning the remaining area to nature.That was a condition of planning approval.

Jerri Libreornot

You are right Plemont is an outdated sideline.Why?

Because, despite the majority of people having a general feeling that 'it would be quite nice' to have that area as a 're-wilded park ' of sorts, faced with the disproportionate cost (as Deputy Luce said the NTJ could buy poor agricultural land exceeding the area of St.Clements with the money)and honed and half decent granted planning permission. There was nowhere rational to go.

It's a pity that Sir Philip continues to not understand this and perpetuate the polarisation and that has me agreeing with Dan Murphy for the first time !

Realist

This is not about comparing the cost of poor agricultural land to restoring a vast track of unique coastline to its natural state for all who live in Jersey,forever.It is not about taking money from hospitals and schools. It seems that some regular disaffected bloggers in this tiny forum plainly have a divisive issue with our elected Council of Ministers.Senator Bailhache is no fool and no stranger to social justice.He at least has raised his head above the parapet, which is more than can be said about the nice minister of environment,Deputy Rob Duhamel.

Pontins village fan

Can be please move on from this really boring subject and get on with more important matters!!!

Jersey get a life!!!!!

PJK

You lost a DEMOCRATIC vote, GET OVER IT!!!!!!!

pauper

Give it a rest on Plemont! for Pete's sake!

What

Getting tired of hearing him blab on get a grip and put some work towards the Hosptial or roads, just stop your narrow mindedness so much time been wasted on this site u got ya title do something dont blad.

Sara

Sir Phillip having listened to 3 days of this debate I can honestly say that I was completely shocked and utterly disappointed at your "business case" that showed itself to be completely ill thought out and quite obviously you had done little or no research.

In response to various questions from opposers instead of giving a well informed answer you stooped to the levels of other politicians in that you threw out personal attacks and digs that were completely unjustified. Your behaviour was a disgrace, you clearly are used to getting your own way and resort to below the belt tactics that you always said you were against.

You lost in a democratic process - lost I believe because you thought your name would win the vote, throwing your toys out the pram and continuing with this waste of public money is just making it worse!

If you want Plemont put your hand in your pocket and buy it!

BORIS

For the older generations you may recall the 'Save Queens Valley' campaign of the 70's that ran well into the 8-0's ? Wow it was big, Stickers handed out to put on cars, walks through the valley, even David Bellamy showed up to show support to stop it being flooded! For many around in that era its nearly out of mind, long gone or even forgotten. Then there was the 'Save Colomberie House' Campaign ! Will this be another episode in trying to save parts of the island like the 2 I have mentioned and also others from the past. Each time there was support against the states actions, but the States went ahead.

roombay42

I was always against the Save Queen's Valley campaign having had to run school cross country races through it, including up the stream. At least today's schoolboys have been spared that.

the thin wallet

the taxpayer has being spared the cold shower of buying it ( plemont)

Pete

Proof if we needed it that Senator B needs to step out of politics and get a job working for the National Trust. The arrogance of the man defies belief. First he brings a petty and badly prepared proposition to the States and in the process wastes days of valuable time that should have been used to debate ways of resolving far more important issues.

Now he appears to be telling us there was another option that presumably would have meant the millions he was asking for were not actually needed from the public purse! The fact he will “not be drawn on the specific elements” and his reference to “a large number of people” simply reaffirms his contempt for the democratic system and the majority of islanders who, in hindsight, stupidly voted him in to office with the mistaken belief that he would focus his attentions on the really important things such as getting as many of our unemployed back to work as quickly as possible.

I for one look forward to his appointment to the new role of Foreign Minister (which some might even suspect is a reward for being such a faithful and committed servant to the Chief Minister). We can only presume Sir Phil will spend most of his time on taxpayer funder jaunts around the globe where he will hopefully finally prove of some benefit to the island.

Jerri Libreornot

In the spirit of seasonal pantomime ,which this is a clear example.

'It's behind you Philip!!!'

Oh no it isn't!

'OH YES IT IS!!!

Teresa

Hope Senator Bailhache does not think about doing a land swap as this would be the same as using tax payers money.

Perspicuous

The solution remains a very simple one.

Buy the headland as a financial investment for Jersey. There will always be the option to sell at a later date if we really need to.

That would be a very different proposition to buying and then gifting the land. It would be an asset in public ownership.

James

You are joking aren't you? Is there no end to the underhand suggestions that amount to the same thing - spending taxpayers money in support of a minority interest.

Steve - Grouville

There is nothing funnier than watching one bigoted old Bean tell another bigoted old Bean that "there is a boat out in the morning".

As for non-locals "despoiling the Island", who has been selling their land to foreign developers just as fast as they could get it through planning and the Royal Court? That would be the local land owners wouldn't it?

In thisisjersey's own on-line pole, approximately 70% of the vote was against the idea of using public funds to purchase Plemont. The fact that the States' voted against the purchase by only one vote shows how out of touch they are with the general population. That said, democracy is the polictical system in place in Jersey and Sir Philip is supposed to uphold the principles of that system. By refusing to accept the will of the people, he is betraying those principles on which he stood for election.

P Le Mont

I think you have addded 'approximately' 10%, Steve, presumably as hyperbole.

As I recall, the split hovered around 60/40 until the end of the poll and at times was less.

Real Truthseeker

Priority 1: Unemployment.

Priority 2: Health.

Priority 3: Economy.

Priority 4: Education.

...

...

...

...

Priority 13,457: Plemont

Priority 13,458: Bringing back milk to classrooms.

WB

Health - requires a healthy environment, a beautiful island, the sense that one's island is not being eaten away by developers.

Economy - we need to keep our island attractive so that people will come here. We also need affordable homes, not more million pound dwellings which will only drag up prices.

Education - we need to show our children that the environment matters, that they are part of a rich natural and environmental heritage, that some things are more important than making more money for already very rich people.

ALL of these would have been boosted by returning Plemont to the islanders. Shame you can't see that.

C Le Verdic

There are probably far more school kids who would like to kick a ball around on some open land at Plémont than who would relish the idea of school milk!

Realist

Well said.

roombay42

There are probably more school kids who would prefer sitting at home in front of the TV or computer or games console than would wish to play football in the open air.

Sanity

C Le Verdic - As soon as the likes of you stop this senseless opposition to the clearing of this site then perhaps they will be able to without wasting £8-14 million plus another 2-3 million in legal fees just for a couple of fields behind the site. Fields the NT wants fenced off for their sheep so no football. And it’s not a case of free school milk – many kids are being taught in aging porta-cabins because the States have refused to fund our schools.

Love Plemont!!!!!

C Le Verdic

The likes of, eh? I sense an opposing view there!

I will watch with interest as funding is poured into the schools like flowing milk!

Sir Philip and his supporters can afford this in return for pro independence votes so why are you worried about the cost?

For the record, I hate sheep, they went out of fashion in Jersey even before shipbuilding and cod salting. This isn't bloody Sark! Next thing will be vines.

roombay42

Dear C. Le V.

Have you not seen all the sheep and the vine we now have? We even have goats as well.

Don't get out of town much, do you?

C Le Verdic

I never go anywhere near town.

You'll find me out in the unspoilt places, and that includes unspoilt by sheep!

Realist

Has our Minister of Environment a view? Rob Duhamel has remained silent throughout the Plemont debate.He voted against, which was his right, but he does has a prime duty as a Minister of that department to stick his head above the parapet.He has an interest in expanding cycling routes apparently and perhaps his input led to the extraordinary debacle on a move to spending £400,000 by TTS on a few yards of cycle track near La Folie,a plan to negate the SSI protection afforded to the old harbour and override his department's responsibilities.

C Le Verdic

Damage limitation.

He's lying low, doesn't want the "Double Harm" nckname to stick!