Select a region
Express has analysed the 200-plus submissions to the Island Plan consultation so far to gauge what issues are most pressing for islanders - with the potential expansion of La Gigoulande quarry in St. Peter’s Valley currently dominating.
Officially submitted comments, that will all be reviewed by a team of independent planning inspectors, have been posted online. More will be added between now and the deadline for views on Monday (12 July).
At the time of publication, 259 responses have been published on the ‘Have Your Say’ section of gov.je. The inspectors will spend the summer analysing the comments before public hearings are held in August.
Express has analysed the first 200 submissions to gauge what issues are most pressing for islanders.
And there is one clear ‘winner’ in terms of the topic that people – including regular visitors to the Island – feel most passionately about: almost half of all the submissions reviewed are against the expansion of La Gigoulande quarry into ‘Field MY966’, which is supported by the plan’s authors.
Our analysis of the first 200 submissions shows these are the top topics that people are concerned about:
Here, Express analyses some of the key themes of the submissions. People can give their name - but can use their street name if preferred.
What’s at stake: The draft bridging Island Plan supports the “safeguarding” of ‘Field MY966’ in St Peter, to the south of the St Peter’s Valley quarry, for minerals extraction. This will extend the life of the aggregates quarry from less than eight years to over 30 years, according to the plan. The field, which is currently farmed, was bought by quarry owner Granite Products for £1.65m in early 2020.
What people say: “I object, not only to the notion of such a desecration of a picturesque area of St Mary’s and the impact on the locality, but also to the lack of leadership and management of the whole thing. It does seem to typify how Jersey works, in the dark, with secret handshakes and with little transparency and even less research to ensure that this is the right thing for Jersey. Nothing seems to have changed in this regard since the 1970s, despite all the apparent ‘accountability’ measures that have been brought in to avoid it. This is very depressing.” (La Verte Rue).
Pictured: Campaigners want to save Rue Bechervaise on the St. Mary / St. Peter border, which the next-door quarry could expand into.
“Under no circumstances should the extension of the quarry into Green Zone should be contemplated. The government should be focused on altering the status quo, not continuing it. We need sustainable development and a halt to recent rapid population growth. This proposal flies in the face of reality and the desperate need to reduce resource use.” (Christopher Smith).
“I am opposed to plans to extend La Gigoulande Quarry. I am a regular visitor to Jersey, with family & friends on the island. My main concerns are it will:
Whilst I don’t live in Jersey, I would imagine traffic in the area & local residents will also be affected.” (Robinson Mews).
“I think it is incredibly short sighted to simply extend the quarry in St Mary. We need to be looking at more sustainable sources of building materials. Necessity is mother of invention and by allowing an extension we are simply condoning the continuation of an inefficient, ecologically and environmentally damaging practice.” (Alex Morel).
“Field MY966 - La Rue Bechervais. I believe the re-zoning of the field for use as an extension to the La Gigoulande Quarry should not be allowed. The surrounding area is one of natural beauty with small green lanes. The re-zoning if it goes ahead will destroy the area and increase the traffic volume greatly. Further the increased traffic will be large Ronez lorries travelling to and from the extension and the roads are simply too small.” (Ken Addison).
What’s at stake: The document proposes that three agricultural fields – designated as “strategically highly important” in the plan itself – make way for up 76 affordable homes.
What people say: “It is quite unbelievable that yet more fields in St Helier are being considered for yet more Housing. The three fields along the Grande Rte de St Jean are so important for the residents in this whole area and there are so very many sites already earmarked in Saint Helier for Housing. These fields, backing on to lanes that are quieter than the main road are some of the only green space left for residents to enjoy in this entire area. There is still not even a population policy in place! WE OBJECT TO THESE FIELDS BEING USED FOR HOUSING.” (Tower Road).
Pictured: Three fields off Grande Route de St. Jean, which are currently farmed organically, are proposed for development in the draft Island Plan.
“These fields are working farm land and have been for 100s of years which form a cornerstone of our Jersey history and heritage which must be protected. I have lived adjacent to Fields H1186a, H1189 & H1198 being farmed for over 50 years and they are now categorized as ‘organic’. They are also strategically important to the dairy industry with a wide variety of wildlife, critical to the delicate environmental balance. We have no idea what the long terms effects of this will be on the local bats, bees and birds of prey which live in the field. The proposal will be detrimental to the working dairy farmer who uses these field daily & seeks to dispense with all this forever replacing it with property developments.” (Grande Route du Mont à l’Abbé).
What’s at stake: The draft Island Plan proposes that 11 sites in seven parishes, most of them agricultural fields, become ‘affordable’ housing estates. Some of the largest and most controversial are in St. Saviour and St. Helier. Two of the three sites in St. Saviour are around Five Oaks, opposite the former JEP building and around the corner, off Princes Tower Road.
What people say: “I wish to strongly object to any more housing developments in the Five Oaks area. With all the schools in the vicinity and roads from the north and east feeding traffic through at peak times there are always mile long tail backs in every direction. The new Co-Op development will obviously add to this problem, not forgetting the proposed new housing estate at St Saviour's Hospital, as the only easy access route to town is via Five Oaks. It is totally unthinkable that anymore development can go ahead in this area.” (Jean Drysdale).
Pictured: Building on a number of fields around Five Oaks is supported in the bridging Island Plan.
“I live on Princes Tower Road. The area surrounding Field 530 is already saturated with residential housing and schools, resulting in heavy traffic around the Five Oaks roundabout and feeder roads. On occasions in rush hour the traffic is so heavily backed up from the roundabout residents are having to queue to exit their properties onto Princes Tower Road. Before we lose more green fields to housing for good, controls on population numbers needs to be implemented as the size of the Island is not increasing.” (Princes Tower Road).
What’s at stake: A number of submissions refer to the lack of a population policy and question how accurate planning assumptions can be made without one.
What people say: “Since attending the St. Helier public viewing of the Draft Bridging Plan I have struggled to read through the complex and extensive range of documentation. The more I read, the more I speak with other islanders, the more I feel a sense of foreboding that the island is moving towards a perfect storm of its own making. Options offered simply do not marry with the FUTURE VISON FOR 2030: ‘To enhance Jersey as a special place, protect its environment and unique island identity; and provide the homes, employment and infrastructure that sustain family and community life’ John Young. We identify the need for 1000’s more homes due to a significant population expansion that has stealthily presented itself with the need for such urgency that we are prepared to accept the lack of a Population and Immigration strategy that could inform us of what a sustainable and sensible Island Plan should look like.” (Mike Tait).
What’s at stake: The Island Plan estimates that there needs to be an extra 7,900 homes created up to 2030 if meet the needs of a population expected to grow by 800 a year, the challenge compounded by a 1,800 net shortfall in homes from the last plan. There is currently a significant demand for social housing.
What people say: “I am Jersey-born and I am being evicted from my private sector rental flat in the next 2 weeks after 10 years residence. I can no longer compete in the private sector, being single, in poor health & on benefits. Despite being a 'highest priority' applicant for social housing for the past 4 months & having registered my interest in 15 vacant Andium 1-bed flats in the past 2 months alone, I have received no offer of social housing and will therefore be homeless by the end of May. […] As an absolute minimum, future planning applications MUST state whether the proposed homes are designed for owner occupier or rental and whether for private or social housing use. I am astonished that this is not already the case. Needless to say, future housing developments must prioritise 1-bed rental flats for the next few years in order to avoid many more blameless islanders ending up without any home like myself.” (Route du Fort).
What’s at stake: The Island Plan proposes that the two fields to the south of the Village Green provide up to 41 homes as a single development.
What people say: “The fields are stated as being on La Rue de la Haye when in fact access to them is solely via La Rue de la Mare de la Reine (the “Lane”). There is no fields’ boundary on La Rue de la Haye. The Plan refers to the fields as having good access. This is incorrect for the purpose of a housing development. The Lane is very narrow, with single lane traffic. The increase in traffic resulting from a development of up to 41 houses would be detrimental to the Lane. There is heavy footfall of dog walkers, horse riders, joggers, walkers and children walking to school. The Lane would become too busy for this to be safe and enjoyable. The Lane currently forms part of a safe access route from east to west of the island.” (Sue de Gruchy).
Pictured: The zone of development at Les Quennevais identified in the plan.
What’s at stake: The Island Plan identifies the built-up area of Les Quennevais as the island’s secondary urban area. It says the area is expected to help meet the island’s development needs over the period of the plan (2022-2025), so the building of more homes and community facilities will be supported.
What people say: “Designating Les Quennevais as a secondary town makes sense. This should mean that Les Q is treated in a similar fashion to town such as improving cycle infrastructure by extending the cycle path down to Don Bridge and improving sense of place in Les Quennevais town centre. Each local centre and main centre should be clearly demarcated with gateway signage designed by the relevant parish(es), such as those in St John. This will make a clear difference between the boundaries of the rural zone and the urban zones and helps to build a unique character for each urban zone. (La Rue du Muet).
What’s at stake: The observation that banks and hedges are being replaced with fences.
What people say: “I notice that that it is becoming common place for people living in country parishes to remove banks and hedges and replace them with fencing. This is often particularly unsightly and is ruining the unique character of Jerseys countryside and lanes particularly when they are built at a roadside location. Some examples of this are in La Rue Gombrette, St. John, La Rue du Hurel, Trinity and a proposal for La Rue des Houguettes, St. John. There are also many others. These changes are suburbanising the countryside. Could the plan address this issue and prevent the loss of banks and hedges wherever possible." (Route de St Jean).
What’s at stake: The observation that car parking spaces close to beaches are being lost.
What people say: “Like many living in such a small Island with limited amenities my hobby is sea kayaking. This is not a carbon generating or emission sport but does require the transportation of boats and safety equipment to be beach and being able to park within a reasonable distance of a slipway. I am concerned that over the past couple of decades such parking has been removed and or restricted. From comments over Grève de Lecq and other sites that it is now policy to reduce parking to force people to use buses - but in reality for very many beach goers and not just those wishing to transport sporting equipment but also families with children, prams, parasols, picnics and general child-related paraphernalia this is simply not a realistic alternative. Our beaches need to be treated as an essential public amenity and a valuable asset that belongs to each and every islander and public access vis-a-vis parking should be protected and enhanced.” (Terry Gallichan).
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.