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.
Plémont inquiry will be a waste of money
Share this:
From Mike Riding, Plémont Estates.
JERSEY’S idiosyncratic planning process has come to the fore again with the announcement by Senator Cohen, the Environment Minister, that there will be a public inquiry into the application to build 28 houses on the site of the old Pontin’s Holiday Village at Plémont.
The minister’s call for an inquiry has come as something of a surprise to many people because the development has been on the department’s agenda in various forms, for the past five years. During this time, the planning officers have recommended acceptance of the plans, the first of these being in May 2009, when they advised the minister to accept plans for 30 houses to be built on the site.
The sensitivity of the site has ensured that the planning application would receive greater scrutiny than many others. Even so, the minister’s judgment must be questioned when his first call for a public inquiry is made five years after the initial application was lodged and following a great deal of work, at taxpayers’ expense, by the planning department.
Naturally, a public inquiry will cost taxpayers a great deal more. Questions about the financial wisdom of such a move during times when belts are supposedly being tightened are more pertinent when the proposals are looked at and planning department reports considered.
The minister has called an inquiry because of the potential impact of the proposals on the Green Zone. It is therefore important to note that the plans reduce the existing built up area by 40% in terms of gross floor area and deliver 67% of the total site area back into public hands for the enjoyment of all Islanders.
Planning officers themselves have stated in a report that the proposed redevelopment would ‘result in an enhancement of the countryside character’ of the site and in the same report have said that: ‘The proposal to redevelop would involve a significant environmental and visual improvement compared to the existing situation and, as such, would be in accordance with the requirements referred to under Policy C5 to justify an exception to the general presumption against new development within the Green Zone’ (Policy C5 is the Island Plan Green Zone Policy.)
The Planning department officers also seem to be in little doubt as to the suitability of the proposals for the Green Zone area when they state: ‘The removal of the unsightly holiday camp buildings and the erection of three, well-designed clusters of traditional-style dwellings and the reversion of over 60% of the site to open land, is considered to be sufficient to consider the proposals as an acceptable exception to Policy C5.’
Given the planning officers’ support for the plans and the large expense that will be incurred, it is difficult to understand how the minister has come to the conclusion that the Island’s best interests are served by a public inquiry.
It is even more difficult to understand the minister’s decision when you look at the development in Portelet, on the site of the Jersey Holiday Village, which is in the countryside zone. This development spreads beyond the boundaries of existing buildings, creates a much larger volume of built space and does not create new public open areas.
In spite of all these inconsistencies with the Island Plan, the minister has at no point felt that a public inquiry was necessary.
It is the duty of the Planning and Environment Minister to deal with every case individually while at the same time providing consistent judgments. With respect to the development of Plémont, the minister has shown no consistency and is on the verge of wasting a great deal of public money on an inquiry that is very likely to come to the same conclusion as his officers – that the proposals for Plémont are a huge improvement on the existing buildings, they reduce the built-up area and return two-thirds of the site to public ownership.
These and numerous other improvements on the site mean that the proposals cannot be considered as inappropriate for the Green Zone and that the public inquiry is little more than a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Related