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.
Please explain the Plémont decision
Share this:
From John Mesch.
THE Environment Minister’s announcement that he has signed the planning permit for an estate of 28 luxury houses on the coastal headland at Plémont marks the nadir in the States’ ability to uphold the rule of law and deliver natural justice to its Islanders.
Your report (JEP 16 August) provided the latest evidence of the Environment Minister’s failure to justify building this controversial, large-scale development. Realising that ‘enabling development’ provides no justification at all for building these houses on a listed archaeological site in the green zone, his chief executive is now claiming that the people of Jersey have been privileged to be the beneficiaries of an ‘on-balance’ decision.
This unreasonable decision means a precedent has been set that will, in future, enable any landowner with a few derelict buildings near some green fields he owns to build a housing estate, not only on land where the derelict buildings stood, but extending into adjacent areas of undeveloped fields in the green zone, even if these fields are also a listed archaeological site, on the highest part of a coastal headland in clear view from miles around.
Where is the minister’s justification for replacing the existing blot on the landscape with a more permanent one? More importantly why has he failed to explain how this decision will be in the long-term interests of the Island and its inhabitants? Why did he ignore the public inquiry inspector’s opinion that the location of all these houses ‘irrefutably conflicts with the Policy SP 1’, a policy which calls for large-scale developments to be contained within existing built-up areas.
In his written answer to the question tabled in the States on 4 December 2012 asking the minister why there was sufficient ‘cogent, exceptional, justification’ for the development to be approved as ‘enabling development’, Deputy Duhamel gave this as his reply:
‘In this instance, the minister is satisfied that there is sufficient justification for allowing a substantial departure from the Island Plan.’
The crux of the issue has been whether the proposed re-development is justified as a means by which to secure a substantive, positive contribution to the repair and restoration of the Plémont headland.
Policy ERE 3 of the Island Plan makes permissible, as an exception, ‘enabling development’ which is something that would normally not be permitted but, may be permitted if it would provide a mechanism or funding to secure positive environmental benefits for the Island.’
No mention here of ‘on-balance’ decision-making. In what way has the minister shown that he has applied all the relevant policies correctly? What are these ‘positive environmental benefits’ and how is the landscape on the Plémont headland going to be restored by building a wide-spread housing estate on it?
There is no balance in the minister’s decision unless he weighted the entitlement of the property speculating owner to a large profit above those of the Island’s interest to preserve important heritage assets, not to mention the wishes of 10,133 Islanders who signed the petition presented to the States in 2006 asking for the site to be saved from development. Clearly, he has failed correctly to apply the ‘Island Interest’ test which according to our Planning Law should be paramount.
It comes as no surprise that here in Jersey, unlike every other civilised country in Europe, faced with this dreadful decision, the people of Jersey are being denied access to an effective and affordable appeals system. Unless someone who lodged an objection to the application has property within 50 metres of the development site, a Third Party Appeal is not possible. The cost of proceeding with a Judicial Review, likely to take up one and a half days in the Royal Court, has been estimated to cost at least £50,000.
Why has the Planning department not ratified the European Aarhus Convention which would entitle Islanders to free justice in environment matters which, like Plémont should be regarded as a matter of important public interest? Ratification has been on its list of outstanding work since 2011. Islanders have no access to protective cost orders, now common throughout the UK. These ensure that legal action, carried out in the public interest, would not incur unaffordable costs being awarded against those making an appeal.
I am forced to the conclusion that in Jersey we have a seriously deficient form of government. At Plémont the rule of law is absent and Islanders are effectively being denied natural justice. Surely, these are both essential requirements of good, democratic government.
Related