A chance not to be missed

We have beaches, of course, and a vast expanse of foreshore exposed at low tide. We are also fortunate that ordinary members of the public have access to areas such as the dunes at Blanches Banques, La Mielle de Morville and the heath at Les Landes.

It is now possible that another coastal area, the site of the old holiday camp and the surrounding headland, may yet be saved for the public – even though many Islanders may have concluded that the present state of stalemate between our planners and the present owner was never going to be resolved.

The latest attempt to buy the site for the general benefit of the Island is about to be launched by Senator Sir Philip Bailhache. Specific details concerning his plan have yet to emerge, but he has said that he is in the early stages of preparing a proposition which will be presented to the States in due course.

Given the Senator’s extensive experience of political and public life and his legal background, it is likely that this latest drive to save the Plémont site will combine a realistic approach with a realistic understanding of what the public purse might be able to bear. Encouragingly, we have already been told that ‘the financial implication is probably not quite as frightening as people might think’.

That said, it remains to be seen how much scope there may be for narrowing the gap between the £8 million valuation put forward by the National Trust for Jersey and the £14.7 million estimate offered by the owner’s architect.

There is, meanwhile, rather more to efforts to acquire the Plémont site than the desire to create a new open space. As the National Trust for Jersey’s current high-profile campaign re-emphasises and the new Island Plan officially endorses, our coastline is a unique and precious environment requiring special protection.

Current thinking may be coloured by the economic crisis but Senator Bailhache’s proposal looks to the longer term, indeed to perpetuity, and merits full public and political support. The only realistic argument against it is financial, but there can be few better things in which to invest public funds for the public good.