Plémont should be part of our coastal parkland

From Maurice Dubras, chairman, Council for the Protection of Jerseys Heritage.

MORE than supporting and sharing the opinion expressed by the new president of the National Trust for Jersey, Celia Jeune (JEP, 25 June), who reported that the trust was ‘hugely saddened’ by this rejection of the Plémont Island Plan amendment, the Council for the Protection of Jersey’s Heritage’s reaction was one of profound dismay and utter disbelief that 25 members of the States did not consider the coastal headland landscape at Plémont deserved the highest level of protection now offered by the creation of the Coastal National Park.

When the minister initiated the consultative process on the draft Island Plan a year ago, the council immediately sought to amend the plan to include the Plémont headland. The council saw it as an anomaly that, in relying on the 1999 Countryside Appraisal that included this important headland in the ‘heathland cliffs and headlands’ section of the report, the boundary had been drawn to include it the character type ‘interior agricultural land’.

In the Examination in Public, the inspectors without good reason recommended that no changes at all should be made to the boundary of the coastal national park. Subsequently the inspectors chose to ignore oral evidence from the council, although the 1999 Countryside Appraisal reported that ‘Jersey’s heathland cliffs and headlands contain some of the Island’s most important environmental features (biological, geological and archaeological sites) with importance recognised at international and European levels.

It is recommended that they must have the absolute highest levels of protection. The only acceptable changes are those arising from positive management regimes designed to conserve and enhance the unique and special character of these areas. There is no capacity for any form of further development.’

This report specifically includes the ‘holiday complex at Plémont’ in this area which is deserving of more than the present green zone protection.

We welcomed Senator Le Gresley’s ninth Amendment to P48/2011 in all of its four parts. This amendment also had the full support of the National Trust for Jersey, and Mike Stentiford, then chairman of the Coastline Campaign. By inference these two heritage bodies had the declared support of more than 7,000 Islanders.

It is very difficult to understand the reasons why a majority of our elected representatives chose to ignore Senator Gresley’s statement that his proposition had this considerable declaration of public support and that the Environment Minister was prepared to accept the amendment. Very few cogent arguments against this part of the amendment were heard during the debate.

Most surprisingly, it would seem that the contre voters did not see that this amendment concerned a matter of principle only – that the most important areas of Island’s coastal landscape should be given the highest possible level of protection irrespective of the present state of development. After all, this is clearly recommended in the Countryside Appraisal report upon which the draft Island Plan is supposed to be based.

The current application to demolish the derelict holiday camp and build an estate of 28 expensive houses on the headland site should not have been allowed to cloud the issue, as this will be dealt with by the forthcoming public inquiry.

19 Magnolia Gardens, Route de St Aubin, St Lawrence.