To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
SSI de-listing proposal is a threat to heritage
Share this:
From John Mesch, Chairman of the Council for the Protection of Jerseys Heritage.
SENATOR Perchard’s recently lodged Proposition P96 / 2010, is aimed at making it possible to de-list a Site of Special Interest for important social or economic reasons. This is a serious threat to our cultural heritage and must therefore, be defeated.
In bringing this proposition before the States one is bound to wonder why he is prepared to set aside his own moral and ethical responsibility to protect our cultural heritage, not only for his own children’s’ sake but also for the appreciation and enjoyment by all future generations.
Does he not understand obligations undertaken by the States of Jersey when it became a signatory to the Valletta and Granada International Conventions? These legally binding conventions recognise the responsibilities of party states to protect their own archaeological and architectural heritage. What social reasons are being put forward by Senator Perchard which he considers to be of even greater importance than identifying our heritage sites and protecting them? Or, is this really all about money?
Article 51 of the Planning and Building (Jersey) Law 2002 provides the Planning Committee with all the legislative power it needs to de-list a Site of Special Interest ‘when it is satisfied that its special interest has ceased to exist’. This is the only sensible reason to de-list a Site of Special Interest, which has only been listed after a long and exacting process involving experts in all the relevant fields, including representatives from the professional bodies of architects and the construction industry.
Who is Senator Perchard suggesting should become the arbiter in trading the economic value of building on Castle Green, for example, against its priceless value as a Site of Special Interest?
We are constantly being told by the States that drafting new legislation is time-consuming and a very costly process. Senator Perchard should make an instant saving in unnecessary public expenditure by simply withdrawing his proposition. Whatever happens, for this proposition to succeed, the States would have to demonstrate a level of moral and ethical bankruptcy that is hard to imagine.
Related