The destruction of the rain forests, the rape of Alberta by the oil industry, the turf cutters of Ireland destroying age-old bog. All over the world there are issues concerning land and its treatment and usage.
And here in Jersey we have our own issues in micro form. The problem is we have 45 square miles (118.2 square kms), no more. Once the land is built on, that’s it. There has therefore been a constant battle, more especially in modern times, to seek to protect what open spaces remain whilst protecting property owners’ rights.
Plemont, on the north-western cliffs, is the latest battleground. Putting to one side its beautiful beach and caves, controversy rages on the high land above. In the days where there were no planning controls a holiday camp was built there. The Germans used it for their troops during the Occupation years. Then Fred Pontin bought the site and rebuilt the holiday village on the same footstep. The advent of cheap air travel mortally wounded the cheap end of Jersey’s tourist industry and the village was closed in 2000 on Fred’s death and his company sold to developer Trevor Hemmings.
To bring the story up to date, Mr Hemmings now has planning permission for a luxury development of 28 houses on the site. Battle lines have been drawn. Many are relieved that the eyesore of the old derelict village will be dealt with at last. Others are strongly behind the idea that the States of Jersey ought to buy Mr Hemmings out and have the site restored to nature. The cost is, as yet, unknown but £10m – £12m seems to be where the bargain would be struck.
Unusually there are good and cogent arguments on both sides, together with the usual and manifold squawks from those that can see only one side to an issue. Here is a guide to the arguments on both sides.
In favour of the development
- It will allow demolition of the rat-infested ruins and will tidy up the area.
- Mr Hemmings promises 2/3 of the land will, in any case, be released for public enjoyment.
- It is Mr Hemming’s land to do as he wants with, within the limits of the planning laws.
- No taxpayers’ money wasted, especially in these hard times. We can’t afford £10 – £12m.
- Valuable addition to the housing stock.
- ‘Return to nature’ will just mean another bunch of gorse and heather, no different from the rest of the north coast.
Against the development
- It is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to rescue this beauty spot and preserve it for future generations.
- The 28 houses are one thing. With them will come the trappings of luxury – swimming pools, multiple cars etc. Access/egress through the tiny lanes will be a major issue.
- The 2/3 land gift is a cod. It will surround or be hemmed in by the new development and can’t be regarded as natural and wild.
- The cost is nothing when examined objectively. Jersey’s GVA (Gross Value Added) in 2010 was £3.5 billion, its GNI (Gross National Income) £4 billion. Amortised over, say, 100 years the £10m asking price = just £10,000 per annum.
- Land speculators have no right to expect super profits.
- Development of this land would set a precedent for the future. It has happened too many times already – look at Portelet.
My mind is firmly made up. What do non-Jersey readers think?
Back On The Rock 
Well, I’m a non-Jersey reader, but after trying to educate myself more on Jersey and this particular issue, I will need to stay neutral! Needless to say, your points against are compelling, and it seems as though the economy of Jersey somehow manages to do better than our poor little province of New Brunswick, so it could do without new development. In our case, if we had the option of having luxury houses built at a distance from other things as opposed to our biggest threat at the moment, which is shale gas fracking (badly needed revenue and jobs pitted against the frightening possibility -aka likelihood – of water contamination and even mini-earthquakes), we’d be pretty happy with the houses. But I take your point, especially in a very geographically-contained island. Good luck with the outcome. Meanwhile, if you could do anything about the oil sands in Alberta, THAT would be impressive! 🙂
LikeLike
One day the world will wake up and realise the constant climbing over all other considerations for revenue and wealth has stopped. It’s frightening how the political will is invariably on the side of the short-term economy with the environment nowhere on the radar. I pity the developing countries that want to live like we do 😯 P.S. I’ll sort Alberta out next week 🙂
LikeLike
Absolutely 100% in favour of returning it to nature. States of Jersey, do what you have to do. For once listen to the groundswell of public opinion!!
LikeLike
Hi Kate, Are you back in the Island? I’m not so sure that public opinion is so clear cut on this.
LikeLike
No, still in Oz. Keep a watch through the EP every day, and put in my two penny worth where I can. Not that anyone would take much notice of a person who left the rock in 1974!!.
LikeLike
I tend to disfavor development unless the reasons behind it are particularly compelling (such as affordable housing to address homelessness). I remember a chart in a biodiversity course I took in college that showed how suburban sprawl in the US, which reduces the wildlife corridors animals need to maintain genetic diversity, only benefits to two species: squirrels and deer (perhaps the most annoying species we have here). Just about everything else is headed for extinction, with some on a faster path than others.
LikeLike
Thank you AMB – always pleased to hear your intelligent take on issues.
There are few votes in the environment and biodiversity when there are a few bucks to be made. That much is too clear and I don’t know when (or if) the collective mindset will turn.
As to Plemont, if someone said that if we didn’t spend the £10m we could have a new hospital wing, or house more single-parent families, or increase the budget for mental health then I might be against the land buyout. BUT the money is lying there doing nothing in reserves. Alternatively there are land swaps that could be done to save the area in question.
LikeLike
Flatten it anyway. It’s a bloody eyesore ! Replace it with a Martello Tower. Or it can be a refugee processing centre for migrants wanting to enter the UK legally for once. Or an off-shore migrant holding centre for boat people attempting illegal entry to Australia, and who object to the facility on Nauru. Or rebuild it as a lighthouse so runners can race up and down the steps. An Aged Care home for those who like wind. So many options. Prizes offered for the best suggestions.
LikeLike
Hi Peter. All of your suggestions make a lot more sense than that taken by our lily-livered representatives. To their utter shame they demonstrated that only money talks in this Island. Our grandchildren will shake their heads in wonder at our stupidity. You must have availed of the pool and bar facilities at Pontins in your day Peter?
LikeLike