Benefits of this campaign are there for us all

From Mike Stentiford.

I FEEL that it is imperative that a response is given to the letter from John Henwood (JEP, 29 September) relating to the recent public inquiry on Plémont.

Unlike Mr Henwood, who chose only to attend and speak on the first day of the public inquiry (correctly dealing with the supporters of the proposal), I attended both days, the second day obviously fairly and crucially devoted to the opposition.

The fact that Mr Henwood saw fit not to attend and listen to the substantive evidence so articulately delivered by the opposers on day two raises the question as to his wild and assumed remarks ‘the small but noisy opponents to the proposed scheme, etc’.

In the words of the inspector, Alan Langton, the entire two-day inquiry was conducted, rather unusually, in a truly civilised manner, unlike many likewise inquiries in the UK.

As one of the many in opposition to the application attending, I therefore resent the insulting, inaccurate and totally unjust accusation of being part of a ‘small but noisy group of shroud wavers’.

It was certainly to Mr Henwood’s great disadvantage that he was not present on day two when he would have gained an opportunity to digest a great deal of valid information dealing with the Island Plan, Jersey Law, planning restraints and the true ecological value of the Plémont headland.

If he had, then perhaps he would have attained a modicum of understanding as to why this precious piece of wild, open landscape should rightly warrant the highest degree of respect and protection.

To thousands of thoughtful Jersey people, who accept and realize what a privilege it is to live and work in such a beautiful Island, it is becoming ever more inconceivable that so much sweat, toil and effort has to be continually expended in order to logically endorse the fact.

It seems to me that, all too often these days, we appear to have little option other than to silently stand by and witness the terminal decline and change of character to much of Jersey’s remaining areas of coastline and open landscape.

Heaven’s above, are there not times when we must all search our conscience and shout as loudly as we can for what we truly believe in?

In this respect, might I also please add that the National Trust’s current ‘LovePlémont’ campaign has not been launched, as some might misguidedly presume, to simply add another piece of publicly accessible coastline to its current portfolio.

In the most realistic of terms, the campaign to secure this wild headland is not only to responsibly offer it permanent future protection, but to ensure endless passive benefits to every man, women and child living in Jersey – now and in the future.

May I respectfully conclude that this also applies to Mr Henwood, should he and his family ever wish to appreciate and enjoy an unspoiled scenic view coupled with a north-westerly breeze.