2

Caroline

I see in the offline edition of the newspaper Senator Cohen passes the buck to previous Planning Ministers for the destruction of our coastline by listing a number of seafront developments which are nothing to do with him.

People aren’t stupid, Senator Cohen. We haven’t forgotten your fingerprints are all over the Waterfront, Portelet, Bouley Bay and Havre des Pas.

Can somebody please bring a vote of no confidence against this man?

Report abuse

4

Mogit

No-you cannot stop people putting in coastal building applications, but you do have the power to reject them, which is what you and your predecessors should have been doing for years.
Incidentally, looking at the recent demolition of two properties on the coast near La Rocque, what will be the guidelines for this site, or will it be a case of not wishing to upset the wealthy developer!!!

Report abuse

6

Adrian

Will Mr.Cohen have the bottle to stop further inappropriate development of the coast line? I wouldn’t bet on it.

From what I have seen going on around Jersey, development wise, I couldn’t vote for him I’m afraid. In my opinion we need someone who puts the environment first.

Wealthy developers need to know that there is a line that cannot be crossed.

At this rate of development Jersey will be ruined in the not too distant future. For a taster of what can happen just look at St.Clement, where it appears that every old house is being bought up by developers, paying over the odds, because they know they can get away with building houses in the garden.

People do not want to be living on top of each other. When will those in charge realise this and do something about it? Jersey cannot keep taking people in all the time without the same numbers leaving it is unsustainable.

Another thing that bugs me is the ugly sculptures that seem to be appearing on these housing estates. Does Mr.Cohen think a sculpture makes things alright with the public?

If Mr.Cohen is reading this may I suggest he goes back to basics and starts requesting traditional building materials, that fit in with Jersey’s history, and tradition, are used as much as possible, and not environmental damaging materials like concrete? Concrete buildings if you are unlucky may not last 30 years. Traditional builds on the other hand can easily last 500 years with the correct maintenance.

Concrete is fine and dandy in inner London but not in places of outstanding natural beauty on Jersey’s coastline. As for St.Helier lovely old granite buildings have been bastardised in my opinion by having either polished granite monoliths next to them, or glass and steel modern structures, or shocking multi coloured painted blocks so out of place as to grate on the senses. Where is the joined up thinking? The plain answer is there isn’t any. St.Helier is a joke in my opinion.

Report abuse

8

Nick

The answer to this is simple!
Set down a list of criteria that Planning will regard as their “Line in the Sand” when considering Coastal site planning applications, and in particular:
1)”Change of use”
2)”Density change”
3)”Architectural style change”
applications in relation to such sites.
Let’s take one Bay as an example: Archirondel.
This Bay area has been subject to significant change over the last forty years.
Some of it good, some of it bad, but significantly demonstrating clearly how planning laws have prevented the total “Privatisation” and loss of the view of the sea and foreshore from the Coast road for the general public!
Improvements:-
a) Certainly the development of the former Les Arches Hotel is a significant improvement, and despite the loss of unwanted,poorly sited Hotel and entertainment facilities, represents a good example of “Change of Density” planning, executed in a modern and functionally interesting (Is there a hint of Victorian ironwork?) style.
b)The refurbishment of the properties on the land side of the road at the Gorey end of the Bay by their private owners, is a demonstration of how somewhat ordinary and mundane initial design (Mostly 1960′s functional)and difficult siting, can be significantly overcome by allowing individual owners certain license to update.
c)The cafe,car park and convenience facilities have in general significantly improved facilities in the Bay.
d)The protection of the field in front of the former Les Arches on the coastal side of the road from development has preserved a Coastal view for the general public which was in danger of being lost for good to private development!
Not so Good:
a)The “Privatization” on the Coastal side of the road at the St Catherine’s end of the Bay, where development of what was formerly agricultural land has resulted in the view from the road of the Bay towards Gorey being lost for good to the general public and replaced by a large “Out of character” granite wall (Well executed but too tall,neat and tidy),an over-grand gateway, and a large and totally obscuring conifer hedge!
(The message:”P–s off/Keep out/even sight of the sky here is mine!” In the best possible taste of course!)
b)The opening up of the view from the road of the property inland of a) on the land side of the road seems to be a “Work in progress” and could improve, but I suspect an application for an “Iconic development” (Or two?) is imminent here, if not already in progress.
(Watch this space and what was an old but attractive granite outbuilding, and the Cotee and skyline behind it!)
c)The Cafe/Car Park and convenience facilities could have been less modern, cost conscious and 1960′s in design and more in keeping with the neighboring cottage inland of it.
The effect in general being the loss of what was a short but picturesque little lane accessing the Bay.
d)The over painting of the Martello Tower as a shipping Mark!
Is this really necessary on a scale that engulfs the whole Tower, even on the land facing side?
(It used to be far less “In your face” in the 1950′s and 60′s.I suspect contract over charging for paint for a number of years, being an old cynic)
e)Whilst moorings for boats are a useful facility for those fortunate enough to own them, these have gradually increased and indeed have taken over what were sandy low water areas in the Bay suitable for young children to swim safely.
Why has this been allowed when they could easily be sited further offshore where they do not encroach?
So that’s simple then!
Add:
5)”No Infilling”
and:
6)”No over development of individual sites”
7)”Environmental style change”
8)”No excessive security walls,hedges, fencing,sign-age or cameras”
And you have your blueprint for “Negotiation”!

Report abuse

10

Low Cement

Nick what really hacks me off in the area you’re talking about is a small but deeply offensive ‘blip’.

Below La Crete Quarry on the SSI for Geological reasons(Anne Port/Havre des Fer) a business owned by someone now known for ‘Delivering the undeliverable!’ has dug a partial trench and put an exposed seawater pump and wires . Presumably this passes health and safety and is allowed ‘somehow’ under the strict SSI rules.

Report abuse

12

R B Bougourd

“While we’re on the subject of boat moorings, what on earth is going on in St Catherine’s bay and the two small bays towards Gorey next to it?” -Asks Nick.

Well, not being in a position to join the hordes who drive to St Catherine every Sunday, I resorted to Google Earth to have a look.

Not a lot, so I checked up on the potential annexation of Petit Portelet. In recent years the formal path from the roadside to the north of the Castle Green has disappeared comletely and the narrow track down to the bay is becoming less obvious. I’m expecting that one day someone will say “Footpath? What footpath?” and the bay will become conveniently inaccessible to the public. It would be interesting to know who owns the cotils alongside the road.

Keep an eye on this one, please, Jerseymen.

On a lighter note, Google shows the shipping routes to Guernsey(?) and Carteret landing at the slime covered steps behind Gorey harbour.
The Guernsey route also passes worryingly close to the Equerriere rock.

Report abuse

14

Born Warrior

I am an environmentalist, however, I wouldn’t want to see Jersey become uninhabited like the Minquiers and Ecréhous islands, nor would I wish to see it turned into a larger version of Sark.
I understand the needs of a growing population and I realize that new housing developments are necessary on both brown AND green fields (to be bought by the States at green-field prices and not at “make-a-friend-rich” prices)…but new houses can be built without destroying Jersey’s charm and beauty.

In my opinion, the face of “Town” has suffered mutilation, but for others it has had a long overdue facelift. It’s impossible to please everyone, and let’s be realistic, it’s done and dusted and nothing is going to change it.
The important thing now is to stop this defacement from turning into devastation.
Mr Cohen’s promises were believed by many people who are now very disappointed and will not vote for him again. But at least he is showing signs of regret for the things he and others before him have allowed to happen. His promise to draw up new guidelines is a start, and hopefully, somewhere along the “road to redemption” he will also remember some of his election promises.

Report abuse

16

Jaime B

seriously though… how much more can this small island take? We are sinking with the recession and all those people here who dont need to be and soon we will physically be sinking because cohen and his cronies keep giving planning permission to NON UK companies to make ugly looking buildings all over the place! Its a tiny Island and Cohen and the rest of the states are allowing it to drown to make themselves look big without giving a second thought to the masses of the island who dont want any more change and who want the island to get back to normal!! Well to at least get back to a better way of life when we could all afford things and we weren’t getting ripped off left right and centre by taxes and GST and any other charges they can force on us!! Sack the lot of them and give the choices back to the people of jersey! The states dont really listen to anything we have to say anyway!!

Report abuse

18

Tom T.

Not in my name!

So the JEP is whipping up this story, ok 7000 is a lot of people, but given the population it does not hold so much weight. I agree that the coast needs to be protected, but I also agree that change and redevelopment of existing buildings needs to be able to happen.

I understand that this was the thinking behind the National Trust’s protest.

Cohen should stand firm.

Report abuse

20

Queen's Counsel

Yes, it is a pity in a way that this kind of thing has to go on, but at least it shows community spirit.

It seems that the commentator at number 19 (Mr Titmus} is correct in identifying the apparent remoteness and autonomy of ministers. Many will say that ministerial government is not right for the island, particularly bearing in mind the pressures which must inevitably be present in any small place.

The question now has to be the extent to which Senator Cohen will actually listen. Saying something and actually doing something about about it can be two quite different things as we all know.

Report abuse

22

Binkle

I was not at the protest but I agree with the people who assembled. So do many others who were also unable to be present.

It follows, therefore, that the 7,000 strong turnout can be significantly uplifted if you take that into account.

Even if the eventual number of pro-conservationists were to be less than 50% of the local population as a whole (which is open to argument in any case) it is at the very least a substantial minority which ought to register on the planning conscience.

The Senator is absolutely right to reconsider the matter.

Report abuse