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.
An upmarket housing estate is no place to stroll
Share this:
THE latest application for a large development on the headland at Plémont has just been published. The plan is to build 28 expensive houses, most of them not on the site of the derelict holiday camp which is to be demolished, but on previously undeveloped land. The whole site is inside the Green Zone, where there is a general presumption under the planning law ‘against all forms of new development for whatever purpose’.
In debating proposition P.112/2006 the States of Jersey agreed that the headland at Plémont should be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment of the public of the Island. All the arguments put forward supporting that successful proposition still hold good.
The Minister for Planning and Environment has previously denied similar applications for large-scale development on this site. His justification for doing so also remains valid.
Building 28 houses spread over an area displaced from, but apparently larger than, the present derelict holiday camp, all intended for private sale, some of them at prices in excess of £1 million, will result in the fragmented privatisation of this coastal headland. Rightfully this important part of the coastal landscape should be included in the proposed Coastal National Park and given the highest possible level of protection.
The misleading claim by the developer that the remaining land, larger in area than Howard Davis Park, will be open to the public and kept as ‘nature conservation land’ and ‘managed grassland’ is ludicrous in the extreme. Who on earth will wish to spend their Sunday afternoon strolling through a suburbanised, upmarket housing estate with a new access road, garden walls and 100 non-native species trees growing in what should clearly remain a typical Jersey coastal, scenic, heathland and historic landscape? Once privatised among many individual owners in the way that is planned, it will be lost to the public forever.
The Council firmly holds the opinion that the public at large have a higher level of legitimate expectation, that the minister should apply the planning law in the way that is clearly intended and that the agreed decision by the States, made in the public interest, should prevail.
Jersey’s cultural heritage in the form of the beautiful and historic landscape at Plémont should not be destroyed by transforming it into suburbia. It must be preserved for the enjoyment of future generations.
Without doubt, it is the legal and the moral responsibility of the States to do just that.
Related