Do we really want to settle for the ‘least worst’ solution?

From Sir Nigel Broomfield.

THERE are problems which arise in the lives of every community where the decisions taken to resolve them shine a clear light on the values, hopes and future of that community. The long debated decision on Plémont is, in my view, such an occasion.

The Inspector has delivered his report. He has recommended that the application to build 28 houses where the holiday home now stands should be granted. The Planning Minister has agreed with him.

What does that tell us? That the rule of law has been upheld, together with the right of an individual to enjoy his private property within those rules, say those who support the application. And I can see some force in that argument. But I believe it does not go to the heart of the matter.

In his report the Inspector details the history of building at Plémont: a hotel in 1874, a wooden holiday camp in 1935, the Parkins Holiday camp in 1948 followed by the Pontins holiday camp in 1967/8. In 1948 and 1968 the decisions were justified on economic grounds. It was claimed that there was an overriding need to revive the tourist trade and with it the Island’s economy after the war.

The decision taken today has no such justification. 28 luxury homes will not help the shortage of housing where the demand is for first-time houses or retirement homes for the elderly. A glance at the estate agents’ brochures shows a glut of houses in the upper band.

The decision will, however, be irreversible. Once houses are erected at Plémont they will remain and possibly be added to. And although the Inspector maintains they will not act as a precedent for other applications in similar places, it would be a brave man who would bet on that.

The Inspector makes it crystal clear in his report that if the present tourist buildings did not exist at Plémont there would be no case for permitting any houses to be built –

‘Indeed, nothing I have written above should be taken as suggesting that, considered in isolation, there would be anything other than the most clear cut objections to residential development at Plémont. The locality is not just in the Green Zone, but one of the Zone’s most isolated and sensitive areas.’

And although he maintains his decision is not based simply on the premise that what is planned is better than what exists, the summary paragraph in his conclusions sets out his dilemma clearly:

‘However, for the reasons I have given, I consider that the application scheme is the best (or perhaps least worst) way forward starting from the very unfortunate but nonetheless all too real situation existing at present.’

We have now a choice. To settle permanently for the ‘least worst’ solution or to find a way forward which is in tune with the Island’s present and future needs.

We have such an opportunity on 4 December when the Chief Minister’s proposition to buy the land at Plémont comes before the States. There have been vehement protests against spending ‘public money’ on this purchase. I see this rather as a public/private partnership for the future good of the Island.

The National Trust will contribute a good share of the funds and be responsible for the site clearance. The money represents a permanent investment in the mental and physical wellbeing of Islanders in what will become an increasingly crowded island. It will help to preserve a beautiful stretch of coastland which will contribute to tourists visiting Jersey in the future.

To those who dismiss these claims on the grounds that they are vague and immeasurable I would reply simply ‘Not everything that is unquantifiable is unimportant’.

I would end by urging those who take a similar view to contact their Deputies before 4 December.