From Susan Kerley.
I WRITE with regard to BDK Architects’ latest Planning application, the ‘green’ option of 30 houses at Plémont.

The architects have asserted that this plan returns two-thirds of the developed land on the Plémont headland to its natural state. They claim this to be ‘a substantial environmental gain’ in line with policy C5 of the Island Plan. However, there appears to be a great deal of ‘spin’ in their assertions.

Working from the figures supplied by BDK Architects in their brochure, a group of Islanders have come to the following conclusions.

l On the model and the plans, the gardens and the natural areas are coloured in a similar green. This leads people to believe that the gardens are part of the natural landscape rather than the development.

l It appears that BDK Architects have omitted to include the 30 private gardens in their calculations of the developed area. According to page 8 and the question-and-answer section of their brochure, the existing footprint of the holiday camp and its hardstanding is 24,558 square metres and the proposed development, including the private gardens, is 14,931 square metres. This is only a 39% reduction in developed area, not the widely publicised 72%. In fact, the new mini-estates, with gardens, will be 61% of the size of the existing holiday camp.

l However, 40% of the land left to nature is seriously compromised because of the position of the three mini-estates. They surround land which is included as parkland in the architects’ calculations. The estates enclosing this area divorce it from the open sweep of landscape and make it appear to belong to the houses.

This area is therefore given an urban character and will bear no relation to the glorious cliffs and wild beauty of this part of the north coast. If this area were not included as natural landscape, the developers would be returning only 325 square metres to the public.

l Although the developers are returning some of the former holiday camp to nature, they plan to move the houses to previously undeveloped agricultural land in the green zone, in a very sensitive location. This land would never in normal circumstances be given permission for development.

If this application is approved, the Island will gain, at best, only a 39% reduction in developed land, with 40% of this area compromised by houses.

The developers are not only building on virgin green zone land, bu t are also enclosing and urbanising the major area of land between the houses. I submit that this cannot be described as a ‘substantial environmental gain’ as required by C5 of the Island Plan.