PLEMONT PLANS

[Jason the Maverick]

The Constable of St Ouen wants the States to buy Plemont Headland.

He's urging politicians to find out IF it's up for sale and how much it would cost the tax payer.

Plans to build over thirty homes there were thrown out earlier this year.

Constable Ken Vibert says the area should be returned to nature.

Would you buy a house out there?  Its way out of the way....

[The Rev Peter Sarkey]

Wouldn't this make a good site for an up to date planning office ( which could then be accessable by a wheelchair?)

[danrok]

It would be best to return the site to nature, correct the planning blunder of the past whilst the chance is there.

[en830]

I don't see why the area couldn't be used for affordable housing, it already has a development on it, which at the moment is a blot on the landscape and will remaining likes this for many years to come while the states debate, re-debate and debate again.

I guess many of the locals are up in arms over affordable housing, but not in their back yards.

[The Rev Peter Sarkey]

Years ago in London the Government put all the problem families in Tower Hamlets, it was right ruff, now it is the jewel of London. Perhaps this is a good use for Plemont or isn't it large enough??

[Dundee]

The Constable of St Ouen wants the States to buy Plemont Headland.

He's urging politicians to find out IF it's up for sale and how much it would cost the tax payer.

Plans to build over thirty homes there were thrown out earlier this year.

Constable Ken Vibert says the area should be returned to nature.

Bizarrely we now find that the land is partially public, so there is no need to purchase is there?

We hear that planning have passed the plans and apart from the issue of land ownership (which is usually an important thing when building on it!).
What does concern me is the visual impact of the new build which has been plugged as a green one and an improvement of the site, this in my view is totally wrong as the new buildings will stick out a great deal more visually as they will be higher and create a broken horizon on a natural headland that has little in the way of buildings and no estates from Bouley Bay to St Ouen. I do accept that the developer should be allowed to build there but it is the size of the buildings that concern me as they will be three floors with roof space, instead of the exisiting two with minimal roof space.

[Mark Forskitt]

The constable asked a question on this of the Minister for Environment (and planning) in the States today.  The reply was to the effect that the latest plans deviate somewhat from the Island Plan guidance  and the minister is calling in an Inspector to look at the application. Interested parties will be invited to make representations.

[Dylan]

I think I may have posted this before but here goes.....
If you are fortunate to go into the STHYC on south Pier, look at the Admiralty Chart dated about 1840.

The site clearly shows an Hotel, one of about three listed.

I think considering that there have been a few carbuncles built, and houses, since then, that this is a reasonable ground for something to be allowed there.

The reason I put this argument is that if Planning are "allowed" to extinguish very long standing buildings, then it creates an authority for them, in the future to knock YOUR house down, because somebody else wants to put it back to nature.