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.
Plemont? Think cars, dustbins, dogs, noise …
Share this:
From Vivien Vibert.
DEVELOPERS always have the benefit, compared to opponents of their proposals, of selecting not only what to build, but the field of debate.
In the case of Plémont the developer focuses on two aspects only: the supposed visual improvement and the offer of two-thirds of the land to the public if the development is allowed.
All correspondents writing to these columns in support of the proposals have swallowed these points hook, line and sinker, apparently without giving a thought to reality.
Even if 28 houses would look better than a derelict holiday camp (which is debatable), in every other respect they would be disadvantageous.
The traffic they would generate would be considerable, and would have its effects all the way from one of the remotest parts of the Island into St Ouen and St Peter.
And the suburbanisation of the area, involving all the aspects of modern life – cars, dustbins, skips, dogs, sheds, machines, noise – would be in total contrast to the sense of place of the area.
Leaving the holiday camp as it is means none of that, and even if it was returned to tourism, there would be much less disturbance because that is seasonal.
As for the conditional gift of land to the public, that is a Trojan horse, in that the main beneficiaries would be the developer and the eventual residents: the developer would be able to market the houses as having open land all around, which could never be built on, while the residents would have it as an immediate neighbourhood recreation area, without having to get to it like the rest of the public.
Moreover, it would also function as a pedestrian thoroughfare for the residents, from one car park or house to another, all the while being in public ownership.
Apart from such legitimate uses, some residents would dump garden or building refuse over their walls onto it, erect climbing frames, light bonfires and barbecues, leave dog dirt, break through their boundary walls and park a vehicle or skip on it.
If such events were not to happen, then prevention and enforcement would fall on the public at large, whether through the honorary system, the uniformed police, Transport and Technical Services, or the courts. The developer would have walked away by then.
Furthermore, the land offered to the public is in several small patches, one of which is practically enclosed by the three clusters of houses. It would be difficult to manage, inhospitable to wildlife and nothing like a wide, wild, open space.
It is to be hoped that the inspector’s recommendation is against the proposal and that the Planning and Environment Minister follows such a recommendation. Following that, if the States were to acquire the land, it would be a permanent asset to this beautiful Island in the way that Noirmont has become, at minimal cost in the grander scheme of things.
Related