An aerial view of the site at Plémont
THE States have voted by a narrow margin against buying an area of Plémont headland to return it to nature.
They rejected by 23 votes to 19 the Constable of St Ouen’s proposition that the former Pontins Holiday Camp site should be bought by the public of the Island.
Members chose to vote on whether the States should enter into negotiations to buy the site at all, even though another option was the use of compulsory purchase powers and a large part of the debate was centred on this issue.
After rejecting the idea that the States should buy the site, they did not, therefore, need to vote on whether compulsory purchase powers should be used.
On Wednesday, a majority of politicians spoke against forcing the owner of the Plémont site to sell his land instead of pursuing an application to build 30 houses and to return two thirds of the site to its natural state.
Early on in the debate, Chief Minister Terry Le Sueur warned Members that going down the compulsory purchase route was a ‘dangerous’ one that they could not go back on. He said: ‘This proposition has the potential to be extremely dangerous. I urge Members to read the proposition in conjunction with the legal process of compulsory purchase.
• Full reports on the debate in the Jersey Evening Post today and tomorrow
Article posted on 20th January, 2010 - 3.01pm
52 Article Comments
Good to see commonsense prevail, this could have cost us millions at a time when we need our money the most
Report abuse
What a shame – so much for being in favour of conservation and protecting the heritage of our children!
NB: Bear in mind that those States members on the Planning panels are not allowed to vote.
Report abuse
Finally!!! The States get it right for once.
Report abuse
I cannot believe 19 members voted for this scheme. Are they in the real world? We do not seem to have enough money to complete the town park which is far more of a necessity. Connetable Vibert bringing this proposition on the back of 140 members of his parish only and in the light of the forecasted black hole has to be questioned as to his judgement. There has been enough overspends in the Island. Let him put his mind to the economies suggested by Mr Swinson instead.
Report abuse
Predictable…. hardly surprising really. I have to say im pretty shocked after the last two days of States Sitting. Yesterday they opened the island up in terms of Housing Qualifications, and today they refuse to compulsory purchase Plemont. I was always under the impression that a government listened to their public. Apparently not. Granted the public are not always right, but come on, 10,000 people in the ‘line in the sand’ protest, a mystery donation of up to £1 million and support from the National Trust, Save Jerseys Coastline etc. Maybe compulsory purchase was wrong, as if they did that with Plemont, they would have to do it with other sites, but what about simply ‘a purchase?’. I guess the public have no voice anymore….. its the not the first time of course, GST springs to mind.
I have to congradulate the architects though, they came up with a scheme to return 2/3rds of the land to nature and put protections in place for wildlife etc at NO COST to the taxpayer, or the States….. hang though, im seeing a similarity here with the town park. The town park was supposed to be built in 2000 right? and it was delayed and delayed until all of a sudden a plan comes up that allows the park to be built IF some flats can be built at the same time. What happens, the States are all of a sudden behind the plan, when the public are against.
Look at Plemont, they were asked to buy the site way back in 2000, and they delayed it and delayed it. Now looks whats happened, a developer says he can restore 2/3rds of the land and it wont cost the states a penny. Hmmm, dont you get the feeling the States are being ever so slighty tight fisted with their money????
Maybe this island is simply Greedy, i dont know. But one things for sure, as much as I cant stand the man, i’ll certainly be taking a closer look at a certain ‘rogue’ Senators Blog from now on. After all, he was right on zero-ten, and it appears hes been talking alot of sense when it comes to greed within the island. Maybe i should give him a chance…
Oh, and by the way, anybody who says, oh it was only a handfull of people who wanted the land returned to nature, you havent got a leg to stand on. The public meeting was open to all and every islander has had the oppotunity to express their views. People at the meeting came from as far out as Grouville, and it was advertised on every news medium we have over here. People who didnt express a view, dont start saying it was a minority of islanders voting for the land to be returned to nature, you that didnt express your view blatantly didn’t care enough. We all had the chance, and the majority who put themselves out wanted it returned to nature. Its academic now anyways….
Report abuse
The States went further than deciding against compulsory purchase. They only voted on part (a) of the proposition thereby deciding against acquiring our Client’s private property and also against allocating any States funds for this purpose.
During the debate virtually all States Members made very favourable comments about our scheme for dedicating 2/3rds of the site to publicly acessible natural land and 30 Eco-houses. This will transform a heavily developed brownfield site into 18 vergees of conservation land with three tight housing clusters moved significantly away from the headland. By any measure this is a massive improvement of the site – enhancing the environment, conservation and heritage of this area.
Nellie Macon @ 2 -
Although the Planning Panel could have participated and voted they withdrew from the States debate and did not vote. The Panel must take account of the majority public support for our scheme and also the majority of States Members who support our scheme when they make their decision.
Report abuse
At last a sensible decision! Those who voted in favour of wasting more tax payers money should hold their heads in shame.
Report abuse
Good decision. The proposal for 30 homes is reasonable.
Report abuse
I agree, I was getting worried about a lack of houses for people coming over to work and this is the best decision they could of made. The old site is way past its sell buy date and looked a tip as it is. So let the property developers go in there and build a load of properties which will also supply much needed work for the people and even greater needed accomodation.
Report abuse
@5 – Martyn
“I was always under the impression that a government listened to their public. Apparently not.”
It seems the States have listened for once as from the comments on this and other posts the majority of people didn’t want this compulsory purchase to go ahead.
Report abuse
Let this be built on make a village development at reasonable prices for the elderly of the island nice place to retire and see your days out
Report abuse
Good I didn’t want my tax money wasted on this. The people who voted for it must think money grows on tress.
We the tax payers know how hard it is to earn it.
Report abuse
‘B’
Granted, thats the opinion of the people writitng on this comments page and indeed on other posts. What im talking about is the 10 year long saga, line in the sand, etc etc. Also at every public meeting, there was the vast majority that wished the site to be returned to nature, and those meetings were open to everybody, island wide, not just ‘St. Ouens’ as people keep saying. Anyways, this debate is in the past now, we must accept it and we must look forward. For sombody who either wanted the site returned to nature or re-developed for visitors to this island (Yes, some still come here, not many, but some), and not sold to the wealthy residents of this island, i have to say that Mr Harding has put forward a respectable proposition compared to previous. Ok, so the whole site will not be returned, personally as I would have liked to see as his plans will now surely get approved, at least 2/3rds will be returned to nature, which is a plus, i’ll grant you that. Im not just saying this because ive ‘lost’, but if we must have houses up there, at least they are small little groups. Fair enough, i suppose! haha
Report abuse
Woohoo, they got it right!
Finally something can happen in this disused ugly site and some lovely houses can be build.
Mr Harding, will there be a website to register interest in the new houses?
Report abuse
What a shame! No doubt these new homes won’t be bought by local born Jersey folk but overseas nationals as usual! Its hard enough to buy a bloomin flat let alone a house!
Report abuse
a good outcome, well voted .
Report abuse
The aerial view of Plemont looks like a lovely piece of roast beef, just ready for the carve up. Well done to those that sold land to Mr Hemmings at the right time.
Report abuse
Well, all i can say is that the developers seem to call the shots in this island- NOT the Government- that is supposed to represent the people. The states were not bound to spend this so called ” evaluation ” of 14 million pounds for the site, Easily double what it is worth.
Not so long ago, several thousand people made a line in the sand in a show of unity against this flagerant abuse, of what is left of the Countryside in this island. What a slap in the face to them this is. Just watch now, other developments springing up all along the North coast. Who is there to stop them? This planning department ? D’ont think so. Look at Corbiere , Portelet and the rest if you need proof.
Report abuse
Nellie Macon Posted
“What a shame – so much for being in favour of conservation and protecting the heritage of our children!
NB: Bear in mind that those States members on the Planning panels are not allowed to vote.”
It is called “Saving Money” Nellie Macon and it annoys me as a voter that to you and other people in the States its just a game of ‘trying to be popular’
This is why we need better salaries for States Members to get a higher calibre of people.
Report abuse
I am extremely disappointed by this outcome.
Somebody please tell me I’m imagining this report.
If I’m not then I can only say that Jersey has got the government it deserves.
Unless, of course, they are smarter than I think they are and are making sure that noone wastes money on unnecessarily.
Please now do the next right thing by rejecting any planning application involving residential development on the site.
Report abuse
Well I guess I can be pleasantly surprised at some of the States decisions of late. The fact that they have now decide not to push forward with plans to compulsory purchase Plemont Holiday Village from it’s owner is the right decision in the present economic climate.
We would all like to buy things in life but we have to have the money to do it with first. At this present moment in time Jersey simply does not have the money available to purchase this land.
The States of Jersey Voted 23 to 19 not to compulsory purchase Mr Hemmings land. Let us now look toward the future and hope that the next States debate about the area is about how any future development can enhance the natural beauty of the area as has been put forward in the latest plans.
Jersey has a working population of 56250 which was being asked to foot the bill to compulsory purchase the land from owner Trevor Hemmings.
We are at present in the worst financial position we have ever been in, with forecasted budget deficits for the see able future. Jersey simply can not sustain this sort of public expenditure. The new plans that Mr Hemmings has brought forward are fully sympathetic of the natural habitat and should in my opinion be given planning permission now.
The site has always been built on as long as I can remember; planning was originally given for the buildings that already stand on the site which benefited our local tourist economy for many years.
This was the right decision.
Report abuse
I’m glad common sense has prevailed….. The Pontins site is an eyesore and the development planned is a much better way of using the site. What use would returning it to nature be? The objectors should be realistic, there have been buildings there for many years, so let the man build some better properties.
I wonder how many people would object if they owned the land? It seems the green eyed monster is a large part of most people’s objection!
If i was looking for a new house I would be one of the first waiting for a place there.
Report abuse
Totally the right decision. A few tasteful properties and 2/3 back to nature. A win win situation. Fully agree with poster 19!
Report abuse
Return it to nature? Does that mean “make it into a dog poo minefield”, like the rest of the north coast?
Report abuse
Part of me hopes that the plan to return 2/3 of the site to nature doesn’t say anywhere that it won’t remain private, for the enjoyment of the 30 homeowners. Then when all those who campaigned for it to be saved for nature start complaining again their real motive will be clear; they just wanted it for nature, and for them. Greedy buggers!
Report abuse
Fantastic news! How refreshing in these climes.
Wishing Mssrs Harding & Hemmings every success with Planning.
I mirror 14.’s question to Mr Harding, where can one register their interest?
Report abuse
The cowards refused to go with their hearts and vote this through! Money is not the issue here.
Report abuse
I am relieved commonsense seems to have prevaled. Re compulsory purchase – all I can say is that we have short memories – does anyone remember Lesquende and what a nightmare that ended up being?
I think Paul Harding’s proposal is a pragmatic solution which won’t involved the tax payer finding £14 million. Frankly if that sort of money can be found I would want the Town Park built……17,000 people signed that petition – TEN years ago.
Someone said to me yesterday “It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity to buy the Plemont site” – well, we have a once in a life-time opportunity to build a town park.
The Town Park site is in the most densely populated part of town. There are many families living there with no amenity space. Thousands of people live within a ten minute walk of the Town Park site.
Sorry to go on about the Park but I was really worried today about how the vote was going to go.
Report abuse
“Nellie Macon – What a shame – so much for being in favour of conservation and protecting the heritage of our children”!
Nellie what planet do you live on, can’t be the same one as me where states workers are being laid of left right and centre, unemployment is at an all time high and we don’t have enough money to fund essential hospital services – AND YOU WANT TO SPEND £14 MILLION ON A TOILET FOR DOGS???
town park is a higher priority but I would say that takes 2nd place to essential services like having enough doctors and nurses in our hospitals and I’m speaking as someone with a critical illness who has to pay for weekly flights to the UK because I earn £26,000 a year which takes me above the threshold for state funded assistance with travel to the UK ( still £4000 below the Jersey average wage mind )
And before anyone comments that they wish they earns £26K I spent 4 years at university getting a degree for my job.
With a limited budget we must prioririse and spend wisely.
Report abuse
It would seem common sense has prevailed on this one small victory. I am concerned that 19 members seem to think such a vast sum of tax payer’s money should have been used especially at a time when there is a recession and so many face redundancy, I will be interested to know who those 19 were.Their vote will certainly make me consider mine next time around.When will they realise this is not their money to speand it belongs to the Island for the good of.
P.S Roy save us all and stand next time around
Report abuse
How many were in favour of conservation/heritage when they the plans for the Havre-des-Pas incinerator were drawn up and concluded. The line in the sand must’ve disappeared under the sea that day.
Report abuse
#30 #
kate
“P.S Roy save us all and stand next time around”
Did you mean me, or Travert?
Report abuse
How about we reject all plans to build anything on that site and eventually it will all be turned back to nature anyway with out costing Jersey a penny!
Report abuse
Same old same old…when money talks,integrity walks….this whole thing should never have been sanctioned in the first place.
Report abuse
When I read comments from Nellie Macon and I know she has a son in the States I really wonder who they are representing and whether they actually understand the financial uncertainty every Man, Woman and child is facing in Jersey at the moment. Job losses, rises in taxes and worry.
I will be looking at these 19 people more closely and will not be voting for them if they decide to run again for election. It is time for common sense politics and as poster 19 states, a higher calibre of thinking now.
Report abuse
great news, we do not need to spend this money now. The problem will still be there when the ressesion is over and we have a bit more cash.
timing is everthing!!!
Report abuse
Good decision. We should also allow a Cener Parc to be developed there, and at Fort Regent?. Tourism also needs a boost.
Report abuse
I agree with the outcome, and also #35 regarding if thouse who voted in favour are worthy of Public Office in these current times.
Good result.
Perhaps thouse in favour should now sort out the Bal Tabarin site to prove that it is actually possible to return a site to its original state !
Report abuse
As I understand it there is a generally held wide view that in the present concerns over conservation Pontins should never have been given planning permission to build a holiday camp on this site in the first place. If this is the case there is a presumption on the part of both potential developers and the owner that planning permission to build something else is a foregone conclusion. Logically if Pontins should not have been granted planning permission the same conclusion should now apply to any other proposals. My point being that if no planning permission is to be forthcoming where does the value of £14 million come from?
Report abuse
Patricia – I don’t represent anyone actually apart from my future grandchildren and I certainly don’t want them to inherit a concrete jungle.
Restoring the site would have created much needed work and anyone that thinks that anything built there will be affordable for local people is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Report abuse
39 Venerable Outsider – excellent point – a refund of the current owner’s outlay would have been sufficient.
Report abuse
Excellent outcome, 30 new homes and we can knock down the delapitated Pontin’s Village which is an eyesore. We are constantly being told we need to save money and here is a prime example, well done on a good start to the year.
Report abuse
@ Venerable Outsider #39
“…Logically if Pontins should not have been granted planning permission the same conclusion should now apply to any other proposals…”
Now take your idea to it’s ‘logical’ conclusion;
THat sea wall along St Aubin’s Bay should never have been built, the paveing over of the green field site to form the Royal Square should never have been done, the castle on the rocks in the bay? What do we do tear it all down??
IF you were to go down the route of reversing past decisions where do you draw the line? What about the families of anybody convicted over the centuries of homosexual acts; will they be due compensation now that it’s not illegal?
Report abuse
#33, all that will happen then is the site will deteriorate even further and lay empty.
#40, 30 houses built in character is hardly a concrete jungle! Its about time people were realistic. Land has a price, people that can afford it buy it, then build on it, subject to permission.
There seems to be an inherent dislike of anyone with money in this Island. If the protesters are so upset, the solution is simple, put your money where your mouth is and buy it from the owner at market value!!
Report abuse
Venerable Outsider and Nellie,
If someone were to buy the site and propose to renovate the holiday home, bringing it up to modern standards without increasing its size or visual impact, the committee would have to give consent. Once you give consent, consent is given forever – there is currently consent for a vast tourist site.
So the planning committee now would be in a position, if faced with a fresh application, of having to explain why a holiday camp could be on the site but a residential development would be inappropriate. That’s why there is an assumption that development will be allowed: because terrible development has been allowed in the past.
Or, look at it another way. If a car crashed into your house and the wall fell down, how would you feel if planning said you couldn’t rebuild it and had to move out “because planning permission shouldn’t have been given ages ago anyway”.
There are laws you know. It’s not just everyone doing what they think is common sense.
Report abuse
All of the subscribers who think that 10,000 people and 7,000 in the line in the sand wanted the site to be purchased should question why, if they were so determined, wasn’t a fund set up and every one of the 17,000 asked to give say £100. This would have shown real commitment instead of the wishy washy let’s all sign the petition type of commitment that actually means nothing. The problem with wanting the States to buy this area is that a. we have no money, b. there is a £50 million black hole in finances, c. we have no money and d. there is a much more deserving case for a town park that cannot be afforded either.
I suggest all the ‘Let’s buy it and turn it back to nature’ people get real and join the rest of us on planet earth and in particular almost bankrupt Jersey.
Report abuse
Why is Jersey bankrupt? Because the goverent are spending money on silly things like the steam clock. The reason why Jersey gets so many visitors is because of our beautiful coast and country sides. What we going to build there instead now, houses for non Jersey people to come and buy exactly. Everyone needs to wake up and realise that people are killing the coast and Jersey
Report abuse
If the back to nature lot are serious about things, best start with the Bal Tabarin site..!
There still is a lot of lovely countryside to look at, beaches, coastal walks etc.
The fact is that Pontins has been a shocking state for many years so hurry up and build nice things on it.
And who really cares who buys them? Anyone that can afford them will be contributing to the economy.
Report abuse
Andrew Stentiford [47]. Sums it all up. A great shame that this unique opportunity has been allowed to pass by. A shameful decision, and a betrayal of Jersey’s future generations.
Report abuse
Mr. Hemmings would appear to have owned the Pontin Holiday Chain twice in his career, the last time being in 2008 when he reportedly sold it for around £45,000,000.
It would seem that he must have reserved the Plemont site from one of the sales.
Report abuse
I think that the States should buy the Plemont site, restore it and call it “Emergency Flood Victim Relief Station Number 1″ in preperation for the time that sea levels increase and take back substantial parts of Grouville, St Clement, St Saviour, St Helier, St Brelade and St Ouen making thousands of people homeless – or has everyone forgot about global warming
Report abuse
A lot of my childhood in the 60s was spent in Jersey[at Plemont and Portelet holiday camps]I have some wonderful memories,I have been back to Jersey many times over the years and always visit the sights. I know that Portelet has been developed into luxury homes,but before Plemont is,can I please have one last look around?I have many photos of then and some of now!Many thanks
Report abuse