Incongruous developments are changing our countryside far more than many people realise

One day we are told that a glass of red wine day is the cure-all for everything from indigestion to angina, only to be warned down the line never to touch a drop. The same applies to whatever substance, food, drink, medicine or activity is the subject of the latest media scaremongering.

Such stories derive from the latest expert report or scientific findings, the result, no doubt, of years of exhaustive studies at great expense involving a veritable army of scientists, doctors and laboratory technicians subjecting poor, unsuspecting animals and human guinea pigs to trials and tests.

Such a story appeared recently in the Daily Mail. It caught my eye because of the headline which read: ‘Be calmer and kinder, go and live in a leafy area’ and opened in the style of the genre with the words: ‘Few would be surprised to know …’. I read on.

Apparently, those who live in green environments, even impoverished areas, tend to live healthier lives. The source of the story was a study by Professor Frances Kuo of the University of Illinois, who was reported to specialise in the landscape and human health.

Pourquoi? Because those who live in green environments, be that in the countryside, villages, garden suburbs, tree-lined streets or close to parks and city heaths, have been found to be more generous, sociable, calm and trusting.

What did the professor have to say about the other side of the tracks where the grass is less green or non-existent? She discovered that ‘concrete jungles’ exhibit higher rates of crime, aggression and violence, even in more affluent areas.

Professor Quo has confirmed that when it comes to good living, the fresh air and peace and quiet of the countryside beat the pollution, 24-hour noise and artificial illumination, hustle and bustle of a town or city any day.

St Helier is not the most attractive of towns. As with other densely built-up areas such as Les Quennevais or Georgetown, it suffers from a lack of co-ordinated urban planning and poor design. As for the promised Waterfront, it looks like urban hell on earth.

Yet each to their own, and the appeal of an all-mod-cons flat, albeit of rabbit hutch proportions, within strolling distance of the workplace, nightlife and all the amenities does appeal to many Islanders.

Compliments from yours truly in the direction of the pampered inmates of the Turkey Farm are rare indeed, but hats off to the Constable of St Helier and town resident Simon Crowcroft for his amendment to the draft Island Plan. He wants to connect the town to the parish’s rural hinterland and surrounding countryside by a network of environmentally friendly and easily accessible footpaths and cycle routes.

Mr Crowcroft’s idea of a country park encircling St Helier’s urban sprawl, with its woeful lack of green, open spaces and abundant foliage, trees and flowers will be desperately needed if the States approve the Island Plan proposal to concentrate residential development in town.

When the existing Island Plan was approved ten years ago, it took the equitable approach that each parish should take its share of Category A and social housing, and greenfield sites were rezoned to meet the demand for affordable homes. This time round, the country parishes escape unscathed as it is proposed to shoehorn another 4,000 homes into St Helier.

What the formula will be in ten years under another Environment Minister is anyone’s guess.

Based on the nuclear family of mum, dad and 2.4 kids, this is likely to equate to roughly 17,600 more people living in the town. It is going to take a hell of a lot of trees, shrubs, planters and hanging baskets to keep them healthy and calm and on the straight and narrow, let alone make them kinder to their fellows.

By concentrating essential multi-occupancy housing development in St Helier – where land prices are cheaper than in the countryside – it is hoped that at last first-time-buyer homes will be delivered at prices young Islanders can afford – an aspiration which previous rezoning of green fields failed to deliver no matter how many strings were attached to planning approvals.

The rationale is a good one, not only for the promise of bringing the first rung on the property ladder within easier reach of young Jersey families, but because it also seeks to protect the countryside from large-scale estate development.

This policy may be based on the best of intentions, but in an Island with marked social divides it risks widening further the considerable gulf between those who can afford to the live in the countryside and those who cannot.

Fortunately, the draft Island Plan does allow for rezoning at a parish’s request to strengthen the community, allow extended families to live in close proximity and to maintain essential services and a thriving rural economy.

If village schemes such as those built in the rural parishes from the 1970s are not permitted in the future, then traditional Island life will be even further eroded by the younger generations of old Jersey families being forced by the cost of housing to move to the town.

But will the new Island Plan protect the countryside from developers who buy properties to redevelop into multi-million-pound mansions far bigger than the original footprint? It’s such intrusive and incongruous developments that are changing the face of our countryside far more than is realised.