Earlier this year 87-year-old Mary Herold’s second appeal against the 17-unit development near the historic Keppel Tower off Route des Sablons was upheld by the Royal Court.
She praised the court’s decision at the end of last month, but now says she is ‘extremely, amazingly cross’ that the long-running case is due to continue.
Her appeals against the scheme, submitted by Sea View Investments Ltd, were based on claims that the project constituted an overdevelopment of the area that had a detrimental impact on her home, Seymour Cottage, and its surroundings.
But Deputy Luce has said that the court’s decision to uphold Mrs Herold’s appeal threatened to set a precedent that could make future development around the Island difficult.
He said that if the Court of Appeal rejected his department’s case, the Island Plan, which sets planning policy for ten years, would need to be changed.
Describing how the latest development left her feeling, Mrs Herold said: ‘I’m cross. I’m extremely cross and I wouldn’t have believed I would be 87 and have got to this stage after starting all this when I was 83 or 84.
‘I’m not miserable about it, but I’m extremely, amazingly cross. I suppose this is how things go.
Mrs Herold, who has been represented by her grandson, Greg Herold-Howes, a trainee solicitor, added that she would wait to see what happened next.
Deputy Luce said it was unfortunate that it was Mrs Herold’s case that was at the centre of the dispute, but that a challenge had to be made in order to protect the Island Plan.
He said: ‘I am not aligning myself with the developer.
‘I am very sympathetic to Mrs Herold’s case, but the problem I have got is that the court’s decision has put the Island Plan in a very difficult position.
‘Both I and the department are concerned that we need clarity about what that means.’
Deputy Luce explained that the court’s decision could mean that future developments within the setting of a historic or listed building could be refused in scenarios not necessarily envisaged by the Island plan.
Changing the Island Plan, he added, was a lengthy process that could take 18 months.
‘We really need some final clarity on this,’ he said.
‘It is not a decision I have taken easily or quickly.
‘We have spoken about it a lot at Planning to see if we could do things another way, but we feel that we need to appeal.
‘If we lose again we will be straight off to initiate an Island Plan change.’
DEVELOPER and development are often dirty words in Jersey – and it is not hard to see why. The past 50 years or so have provided too many examples of inappropriate and ugly buildings which jar with the natural or built environment in which they are situated.
The cinema, club, bar and restaurant complex on the Waterfront is just one example among many which has fuelled the widespread public distrust of the planning system and suspicions that money opens doors which are closed to ordinary householders wanting to convert their attics or build modest extensions.
Islanders have been left wondering where they can turn to stop history repeating itself.
An answer to that perennial question was finally given this week – and it is the right one. Justice and due process, avenues which should be open to all citizens, have put common sense and community before profit and self-
interest.
The hero of the story is Mary Herold, a grandmother from Grouville, who appealed to the Royal Court against a planning decision to allow the building of a large block of flats near Keppel Tower. She argued that the scheme would dwarf her historic cottage and would have a detrimental effect on the coastal area. It was a David and Goliath battle and she won.
The Royal Court has restored a sense of perspective to a planning process which had lost its way.
As Mrs Herold’s grandson Greg Herold-Howes, who represented her in court, is reported as saying, the Island Plan is clear: development should preserve or enhance the environment or setting. Development which fails to meet that criteria should not be approved.
So what has gone wrong? Who has interpreted these words in such a way as to leave the Island with a lasting legacy of spoilt environments and inappropriate developments?
Jersey needs homes and there is an appetite for well-designed, modern properties which can sit as comfortably with their setting as any quaint granite farmhouse. Appropriate development enhances the Island and can be used to build community and improve people’s quality of life.
This week’s court ruling needs to be a line in the sand, a day when the tide turned against those who would put profit before common sense.
