Meeting backs Plémont purchase plan
Saturday 16th January 2010, 2:59PM GMT.
Parishioners want the site to be bought by the States and restored to nature
ST Ouen residents gave overwhelming support for proposals to buy the former Pontins holiday village site and return the whole of Plémont to nature at a public meeting last night.
Around 140 people attended the meeting at St Ouen’s Parish Hall to give parish Constable Ken Vibert their support before the debate on his compulsory purchase proposition when the States resume on Tuesday.
There was concern about the cost of the deal – owner Trevor Hemmings is holding out for just over £14m for the site – and a handful of speakers who were in favour of the proposals for 30 houses on the site.
Architect Paul Harding attended the meeting to promote the plans, which would see the holiday village demolished, 30 houses built on the site, and two-thirds of it returned to nature.
But the overwhelming majority wanted the States to back Mr Vibert’s proposal and buy the site to return it to nature, with many describing the decision to let the holiday village be built there in the first place as a mistake that had to be rectified.
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
If this goes through and the site is returned to its natural state it will be the first piece of common sense made by ‘our’ government in a long time. Hopefully it might start a trend and further sites could be bought and given the same treatment. I could think of many…. Creepy Valley being one of them.
Report abuse
This article is a rather one-sided report.
There is no mention of the views from visitors to the Public Exhibition over the last two days, attended by around 70 persons of whom 95% gave written comments. Towards the end of the evening I presented the Connetable of St Ouen with copies of all their comments (both for and against), informing the Public Meeting that 51 attendees were against compulsory purchase and in favour of the scheme – with only 14 persons reflecting the majority at the meeting by supporting returning the whole site to nature. I pointed out this constitutes overwhelming support for the scheme of 2/3rds dedicated to nature with 30 houses given by visitors to the Public Exhibition – and not compulsory purchase of Plemont.
Why the difference in opinion between the Public Exhibition and the Public Meeting ? After the Public Meeting one St Ouen gentleman from Vinchelez, to my suprise, apologised to me for not voicing his support as he feared being ostracised. Indeed during the Public Meeting I was dismayed to hear Mike Stentiford personally attack the previous speaker for supporting our scheme. Over the last few months many persons I know personally, previously in favour of returning the whole of Plemont Holiday Village to nature and have chewed my ears about my work, have told me their hearts and minds have been changed by the current scheme which they now fully support. It is apparent there is massive social pressure from the conservation lobby and within the Parish of St Ouen.
I appeal for the silent middle majority of Jersey to make their voice heard by informing Senators and their Parish politicians about their opinion prior to the States debate next Tuesday.
Paul Harding
BDK Architects
Report abuse
At last, something that will truly add to the beauty of the Island and will be available for all to enjoy.
Report abuse
What a load of rubbish, for once I really do hope the states don’t listen to the people. £14m, £10m, £6m at this moment in time is far too much to be wasting on buying a poxy bit of headland, let alone the cost (Jersey tradition to over spend) of returning it to “nature”.
I would sincerely hope 140 people don’t get to dictate what is done with 900000 peoples money
30 houses is next to nothing, will provide much needed work to all trades involved and at the end leave a mixture of lovely houses set in a stunning area. As I’ve said before I can’t wait to put my name on the list.
What next, shall we get rid of the range finding tower at les landes after all its a bit of an eye sore and what were the Germans thinking of building it there!
Report abuse
4-Someone
I do hope you speak out direct to your politician/s. The bottom line is the current scheme gives 18 vergees back to the public – at no cost – plus many other environmental improvements including several puffin conseervation measures.
Look at what happened with Bal Tabarin, bought by the States in 2001 for £800,000 on basis open land was worth more than residential land. It has become a fenced off barren wasteland as picture JEP Friday 15th January with no public access. What is better – 18 vergees attractively landscaped public access land at no cost, or 27 vergees wasteland with no public access?
It will be a travesty of government if States politicians decide to compulsory purchase based on the pressure from 140 persons, rather than really find out from all 90,000 Islanders through a public poll.
Paul Harding
BDK Architects
Report abuse
St. Ouen’s residents and parishioners, hold on, it was an open meeting called at short notice for all islanders. Those that want to buy the Plemont site should do so with their own money, not ponce off the tax payer. Only 140 where they invited claque?
Report abuse
Paul Harding @5
Reference the puffin conservation measures;Do you know what these are going to be.There is i believe a voluntary exclusion zone for the sea between Greve De Lecq and Plemont in order to protect the Puffins.Is some kind of no go zone being proposed for the area(notably around the cliff edges/paths) if it is returned to nature.
Report abuse
I think a broader view on this is needed before vast amounts of taxpayers money are spent. If the residents of St Ouen are so keen on this then they are of course free to have a whip round!!
Report abuse
Just give Trevor Hemmings back what he paid for it, plus any legal fees and maybe plus 10%.
Job done. With all the caves underneath, the whole headland will eventually fall into the sea. Its nature
Report abuse
no to the purchase of this land , more taxpayers money down the drain , there’s the lot of us islanders,not just a few residents of st ouen, look at the island as a whole and not twelve small villages.
someone (4) and (5), i agree with you both.
by the way does anybody use the bal tabarin, for anything else than a dogs toilet.
Report abuse
Pressure from the conservation lobby? personal attack? do not make me laugh.
Turning the site back to nature is the correct thing to do, that is it and is all that matters.
Report abuse
According to Wikipedia, 1 Jersey vergée equals 0.444444444 acres. To even consider that the public should pay over £14,000,000 for just 27 vergées, on a derelict site at Plémont frankly beggars belief. This is especailly the case in a time of economic recession, when the money could be spent on the health or social welfare of islanders.
Under the U.K. Town and Country Planning Act 1990,(T&C.P.A.) the land owner could be served with a stautory notice, compelling him to clear the site up, as it may be deemed to be detrimental to the visual amenities for the area.
Doesn’t Jersey have similar legislation it can use to compel the land owner to clear up this eye sore? Why should the public be expected to pay?
Never mind any legislation, the landowner should have a moral obligation to ensure his land is clear of waste and is visuslly attractive. If land owners are irresponsible, then the States should consider introducing a similar law to the T&C.P.A., if it doesn’t already exist.
I am a Jersey expatriate and own 30 acres of land, in National Park in the U.K.(The current value is under £4,000 per acre). The Planning Authority would come done on me like a tonne of bricks, if I let it get into a mess. I would hope the States Planning Department would do the same in Jersey.
Report abuse
£14,000000 plus the cost to revert to nature so some St. Ouen’s residents have a nice place to take their dogs for a dump – is this what the majority of us want, the NIMBY’s get to keep their nice land and we pay for it?
This absolutely cannot be what the majority of islander’s want 14 million pounds spent on, at any time much less now. Tell those being sacked ( sorry made redundant ) from states jobs thaat it’s prudent expenditure.
Let him sell it, develop it, move on.
Report abuse
Nice one FUBAR:
“With all the caves underneath, the whole headland will eventually fall into the sea. Its nature”
Now you’ve sown the the seeds of doubt amongst the potential mansion purchasers.
Will they need underpinning in the future? Will smugglers come through their cellars on stormy nights?
Or, more significantly, will they own the caves like Daisy Hill Real Estates acquired the Underground Hospital?
One for the Advocate frome the waterfront perhaps?
Report abuse
Let’s go back to 1991 when the old Belle Vue Pleasure Park near the airport was compulsorily purchasd. Initially the owner stated the site was worth £14,449,078, to which the govt offered £2.375m. Eventually after arbitration the owner was given £4.9m as well as costs incurred throughout the arbitration process. This outcome of Lesquende Limited versus Planning and Environment Committee sets the precedent we should now be considering, therefore Mr Hemmings, should consider the cases that have already been brought before the court and their outcomes. It is easy for people to pluck a number such as £14m and focus on that, rather than looking at precedent and work around the figure that is determined through a court process. Mr Harding clearly has his own and BDK Architects interest as his priority which is fine as that is his employment. Obviously his argument was poorly constructed/supported, it was an open meeting and I felt on attendance that everyone across the island had the opportunity to voice their opinion. Perhaps Mr Harding should have spoken to bus conductor Geoff Southern and rounded up a few supportive voices for his presentation. I would fully support #11 A.D. Nauseum and the controls that are in place in the UK to ensure that sites are maintained correctly. Perhaps the P&EC should commence proceedings, offer £5m in line with precedent, perhaps end up paying £7m, and we can then return the sight to an area of natural beauty. Can someone remind me how much was raised/promised to the Plemont headland in the intial fund-raising initiative more than 2 yrs ago?
Report abuse
I really hope those 140 are ignored along with the others who have commented in agreement with them. I was born and raised in St Ouen’s and now live in St Helier, i would love to move back but the only way i could afford to buy a house in St Ouens is with a project like this with at least a portion of affordable homes. I can only assume those 140 and those who agree already live in their overpriced St Ouen homes sitting in acres of land.
St Ouen is the hardest parish to get planning permission to build on and thats if you could afford to buy the land in the first place, returning 2/3rds of the land to nature is more than an acceptable. I just can’t understand it, it’s not like it’s a new build about to devastate Jersey’s landscape it’s just building on what was already there.
Report abuse
There are over 2300 electors in St Ouen and only 140 could be bothered to turn out for the meeting.
The vast majority it would appear are completely apathetic to the issue and only a small minority really want the States to spend millions to buy the land and let it return to nature after spending millions more in removing the buildings and clearing the land. Mr Hemmings wants to do this and still leave 2/3rds for the public at no cost to the tax payer. Let him do it and invest my taxes on something worthwhile like the hospital.
Report abuse
Definately against the States compulsory purchase. I have heard this debate come up a few times and have yet to find someone who wants their taxes put to use in this way. Full marks for the nature lobbyists they have managed to make it appear that the island is behind them, they are not!
Report abuse
I stand as part of the silent middle majority who were too afraid to voice their opinion at the recent public meeting for fear of being ostracised by National Trust Members and St Ouen Parishioners. As a Jersey born resident, I have taken a lot of interest in the plans put forward by Paul Harding and truly feel that this is the very best course of action.
From people I have spoken to it seems quite apparent that the majority of islanders do not want to put that hands in their pockets and fork out £14M for 27 vergees that, without the necessary care and attention, will just become an empty wasteland. Especially in this climate, the very last thing we need it for money to be wasted purchasing and demolishing a site, only for the funds to then dry up and no further cleanup to take place. At least with a housing development such as this, there is a strong financial incentive for the development to be completed quickly and for the surrounding areas to be properly landscaped for all to enjoy.
For those supporting this development, I only hope that common sense prevails and it gets it’s green light. For those who continue to insist that it should be purchased by the states, I can only suggest that you visit the exhibition, look at the plans, and maybe you’ll understand why this is the better option.
Report abuse
SL @ 5 – Puffin Conservation Measures
Sorry did not spot your question earlier. The Puffin conservation measures recommended in the Durrell report are 1-Establish Atlantic Puffin Working Group. 2-Develop all encompassing Species Action Plan. 3-Control of predatory mammals. 4-Development of exclusion zones around puffin colonies. 5-Fence Plémont headland (La Tète de Plémont). 6-Encourage colonisation by puffin of Plémont headland through translocation of puffin chicks from another site. 7-Develop research programme. 8-Allocate roles and responsibilities. 9-Develop funding strategy.
Although part of Rec. 4 (marine exclusion zone) was implemented last season our scheme for 2/3rds site to public access land and 30 houses would fund the Durrell Recs. through a Planning Obligation and Permit Condition. If you want to see a copy of the Durrell report this can be inspected at Planning or my office by appointment.
Paul Harding
BDK Architects
Report abuse
“The silent middle majority”. Aha, second time the phrase crops up. Do I smell a rat?
Will the outcome depend on their silence?
Worse still, are they to blame for the way the Island has changed over the last few decades?
Maybe it wasn’t the establishment, the finance industry, Unite, the JCRA or the JDM – only the indifference of the SMM.
Report abuse
Paul Hardings reference to the former Bal Tabarin site about sums it up really. If the States cannot buy and tidy up a small site, how the hell are they going to cope with the Pontins site?
Sorry but I am with the plan to develop part of the site and restore the reminder which, with people living in the area shoudl ensure that it is well kept.
Cost to the taxpayer – Nil.
Report abuse
#20
“…3-Control of predatory mammals…”
Hardly seems like returning the site to nature, surely there shouldn’t be any intervention; let nature take it’s corse, and if the Puffin loses out to a predator so be it.
Report abuse
Having lived very near to pontins in the 1961 through to 1979 and again in the late 80′s I know the area well. One huge problem will be the traffic on those very small roads 30 houses x 2 cars maybe more? Plus aasociated deliveries etc etc no bus service to speak of. It was a bad service years ago when few people had cars and used it much more, remember the co-op delivery van once a week? Now with car ownership as it is the amount of traffic will be immense. I won’t do the Puffin thing the rats have already done their job – sadly. When I returned back to the area in the late 80′s surfing was becoming much more popular the roads from Plemont stores to the beach were awful if the tides were right, so much so they had to have Honorary officers doing traffic – it was quite simply hell down there. Add 30 homes and it will be a place to avoid.
When the holiday camp was open they used coaches to move people up and down but in those days they did not have the traffic they have now, so even returning it to what it was, it would be I think, unworkable these days.
Also what about the implications to traffic into town the Beaumont bottleneck isnt going to get any better, and I would imagine some of the people moving into Plemont wouldnt all be Westies.
I would like it returned to nature because of the above, and because I can see the additional problems that will arise and the cost to the tax payer re the roads will not be cheap.
Is this just another developer using the lets try a few versions first when they get fed up with us they’ll give in if we show them the one we really want to do, as its better than the others they’ve seen so far? Sorry thats not good enough, I can think of the Five Mile road golf range, just a range it was never going to be anything else and how that spiralled! Just a little change then another then another almost a complex these days.
Report abuse
We are led to believe that the puffins are sadly already a lost cause we do not need anymore “faux granite” developments that certainly wont be first time buyers territory stop messing about turn Plemont into a top class motorsports park e.g. karting , super moto, trials , corporate events etc ,that would certainly help the “event led tourism “that we are led to believe will be the saviour of the industry.
Report abuse
@ truthseeker #24
“21 The silent majority are not as some would have it satisfied with the status quo…they have in fact had their poor brains pulverized by lies ,deceit schmooze and secrecy…”
Want to offer any proof of this, or do you expect people just to listen to your ramblings and assume they’re fact?
Report abuse
Truth seeker, how right you are! (#34)
Report abuse
#24 so true.
Report abuse
Ah mr lambretta ,I refer you to consecutive posts 28 and 29….seems I am not alone in my view….but I expect you are right if that’s what pleases you.
Report abuse
@ truthseeker #30
“…I refer you to consecutive posts 28 and 29…”
In the southern states of America not that long ago all it took was one idiot to claim the blacks sub human, and soon a mob would form in agreement; didn’t make it the truth though.
But maybe posters of comments 28 & 29 would like to answer my question on your behalf?
Report abuse