From John Mesch, chairman, Council for the Protection of Jersey’s Heritage.
THE letter from Mike Riding of Plémont Estates (JEP, 18 March) was a revelation in more ways than one.

It seems that Mr Riding has overlooked the fact that the Minister for the Environment is required under Article 12 of the present Planning Law to hold a public inquiry whenever:

• The development would be likely to have a significant effect on the interests of the whole or a substantial part of the population of the Island.
• The development would be a departure (other than an insubstantial one) from the Island Plan.

Minister Freddie Cohen observed the admirable Line in the Sand public demonstration organised by the National Trust for Jersey, in which 7,000 Islanders called for the protection of Jersey’s coast. He knows, therefore, that this development could have a significant effect on the aspirations of many Islanders who value our countryside and wish to see the coast protected from unnecessary and inappropriate development.

To make an application which proposes to build a sprawling housing estate on the Plémont coastal headland, which is inside the green zone where according to Policy C5 of the Island Plan, this zone ‘will be given a high level of protection against any new development for whatever purpose’.

The minister, as he has already said, recognises that to approve this application which proposes to build a large number of houses on previously undeveloped land in the green zone, would constitute a major departure from the Island Plan.

A public inquiry carries with it a number of distinct advantages for the public:
• The inquiry will have to return to first principles and examine the application against the existing law, its purposes and the policies of the Island Plan.

• The final decision will not be influenced by the ill-considered or misguided opinions of previous committees or planning officers.

• The interpretation of the Planning Law and policy by the Planning officers will be scrutinised in detail and they will have to justify the opinions quoted by Mr Riding in his letter.

As your correspondent, Keith Shaw, wrote in his letter of response to another developer’s defence of the development on the coast at Portelet (JEP, 18 March), the real comparison to be made is that between the proposed new development and the coastal landscape in its natural state.

The general public might also wish to know how Mr Riding can be so certain that in giving evidence at the public inquiry the officers of Environment department will continue to stick to their previous, misguided view t hat this development will ‘result in an enhancement of the countryside character’ of the area? Such an opinion is obviously arrant nonsense.

The only way to enhance the character of this important coastal headland is to remove the blot on the landscape created by the derelict holiday camp, not replace it with another, permanent and more damaging one.

As we have claimed before, rightfully, this important part of the coastal landscape should be included in the proposed Coastal National Park giving it an increased level of protection in the new Island Plan.

It is also relevant that in debating proposition P.112/2006 the States of Jersey agreed that the headland at Plémont should be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment of the public of the Island. All the arguments put forward supporting that successful proposition still hold good.

The council has every reason to hope that the public inquiry will decide that this type and scale of development on the coastal headland at Plémont should not be permitted under the present Planning Law.

It also goes without saying that to preserve this piece of our cultural heritage is beyond value. With this kind of result, the forthcoming public inquiry will then be seen by many as offering the very best possible value, for this particular use of public money.