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.
When public and private conflict
Share this:
That plan was shelved in the face of very considerable public opposition, but a parallel case at Green Island is now the focus of attention.
The owners of a property which overlooks the slipway would like to breach the sea wall to create a driveway. This would allow vehicles to access the front of the property by way of the public slip.
The property owners already have planning permission for this operation – indeed, they secured that permission in 2002. They are also willing to pay £70,000, plus costs, for the privilege of undertaking the work.
The remaining obstacles to the project are the opposition of the Constable of St Clement, Len Norman, and the necessity of securing the approval of the States. This is because the sea wall is owned by the public.
It is clear that the property owners have waged a long campaign to realise their plans, but many will nevertheless side with Mr Norman in opposing what is proposed. Only in the most exceptional circumstances should private interests be permitted to interfere with the integrity of sea defences.
In addition, there would be a cost to the public – albeit moderate – in the shape of lost parking spaces on the slipway. There is also the issue of a precedent being set for similar works in other places.
But in spite of Mr Norman’s legitimate concerns, the property owners have an important ally in the shape of Treasury Minister Philip Ozouf, who has lodged a proposition arguing that the project should be allowed to go ahead.
He has said that he believes that the public interest would not be detrimentally affected, but why such an issue should be of such concern to a leading member of the Council of Ministers is difficult to understand – though ministerial responsibility is no bar to support for apparently minor issues.
When the matter is debated in some six weeks’ time, it will be up to the House as a whole to reach a decision. In doing so, Members must not be lured by the bait of the £70,000 on offer – which is an almost insignificant sum in public accounting terms – but must listen carefully to the parish case, as well as to Senator Ozouf’s argument.
Related
Most read this week...
More from the JEP
Tranquilisation of dementia patients “nice and low” year after crackdown
“Unusual” case sees 70-year-old avoid jail over knife attack
Jersey Dairy milk and butter contamination investigation still ongoing over a month later
Cup final history beckons for Jersey hockey