Island Plan 2011: revised draft revision – approval (P.37/2014) – fifth amendment

STATES OF JERSEY

ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – FIFTH AMENDMENT

Lodged au Greffe on 6th May 2014 by Senator F. du H. Le Gresley

STATES GREFFE

2014   Price code: B  P.37 Amd.(5)

ISLAND PLAN 2011: REVISED DRAFT REVISION – APPROVAL (P.37/2014) – FIFTH AMENDMENT

PAGE 2 –

After the words "the revised draft Island Plan 2011" insert the words –

"except that –

1. on page 74, after the words A3: North-east Low Wooded Edge', insert the following additional bullet point to include the site as part of the Coastal National Park, as shown on the plan in the Appendix –

 Site of former Plémont Holiday Village (part of E1: north

west headland)';

2. the  revised  draft  revision  to the  Island  Plan  2011  be  further amended in such respects as may be necessary, including revision to the Proposals Map, consequent upon the adoption of (a).".

SENATOR F. DU H. LE GRESLEY

REPORT

The Island Plan 2011 goes some way towards protecting those areas which have the highest environmental capital.

According to the current Policy NE6, the Coastal National Park "will be given the highest level of protection from development and this will be given priority over all other planning considerations. In this area there will be the strongest presumption against  all  forms  of  new  development  for  whatever  purpose".  The  Minister  is proposing revisions to this policy which, in his words, will provide "a clearer, stronger policy for the coast and countryside", which I would support as the intention is to have firmer controls in the Coastal National Park "in recognition of the special qualities and particular aims and purposes for the Coastal National Park".

In 2011 I brought an Amendment to P.48/2011 – Island Plan 2011: approval', which I have copied below. This was defeated by just 2 votes, with the former Minister for Planning and Environment deciding to abstain, having previously given his support. I think the current Assembly should be given the chance to decide whether the Plémont headland should be given the highest environmental protection by being included in the Coastal National Park.

Since I brought my Amendment in 2011, the Minister has approved the planning application for 28 houses to be built on the former Plémont Holiday Village site; and this decision is a subject of a third party appeal to the Royal Court by the Parish of St. Ouen .  In  bringing  this  Amendment,  I  am  not  asking  Members  to  revisit  the planning application, but hopefully to agree with me that the headland at Plémont needs the highest level of protection, particularly after the houses have been built.

During the debate on my 2011 Amendment, some Members expressed concern about supporting the proposal whilst there was a "live" planning application. This is no longer the case, and I do not consider that the outstanding third party appeal should influence the debate on this Amendment.

Those  Members  who  were  in  the  Assembly  in  June  2011  will  recall  that  I  was successful  in  adding  2 areas  of  land  to  the  Coastal  National  Park,  namely La Commune  de  Gouray  and  Mourier  Valley  in   St. Mary / St. John .  The  Planning Inspectors only supported Mourier Valley, but the then Minister supported both the above areas and the site of the former Plémont Holiday Village.

Island  Plan  2011:  approval  (P.48/2011) –  ninth  amendment  by  Senator Le Gresley – Extract from Report

3.  Plémont  headland,   St. Ouen ,  encompassing  the  whole  of  the  land occupied by Plémont Holiday Village, as identified on drawing number 1505/06/101 [Countryside Character Area E1] [Appendix 3]

This small parcel of land is part of Countryside Character Area E1. Members are well aware  that  there  is  a  current  planning  application  [P2011/0144]  to  demolish  the existing buildings which were part of the former Plémont Holiday Village and to replace them with 28 houses. The applicant also proposes to return two-thirds of the site to nature. The planning application has been referred to an independent Planning Inspector by the Minister for Planning and Environment.

In 2009, the Connétable of St. Ouen brought a proposition to the States, P.144/2009, asking the States to decide whether to approve the acquisition by the Public of the site, known as Plémont Holiday Village, by compulsory purchase. In the report attached to the proposition, the Connétable pointed out that in September 2006, the States agreed that it would be in the public interest for the headland at Plémont to be preserved as an open space for the enjoyment of the public of the Island.

I do not know what will be the outcome of the current public inquiry instigated by the Minister for Planning and Environment, but it seems to me absolutely essential that this important area of headland is included within the Coastal National Park in order to prevent any expansion of the proposed housing estate at some time in the future.

Financial and manpower implications

There are no financial or manpower implications for the States arising from this amendment.

APPENDIX