Select a region
Next month's Island Plan debate is likely to be dominated by Countryside v Housing battles - and it's looking increasingly likely that Grouville will be the front line.
While only one field in the parish was originally proposed for development, around a dozen are now in contention, with five politicians at the centre of those debates.
Here, Express walks through the issues...
There appears to be confusion in Grouville after the parish’s Deputy called for the only field to be originally proposed for development by the Environment Minister to be removed from the Bridging Island Plan.
In the initial draft plan, published last April, just one field in Grouville - G392A, which forms the corner of Sente des Fonds and Grand Route des Sablons – was included in Deputy Young’s list of sites for affordable homes.
But Deputy Carolyn Labey has now lodged an amendment to the plan, seeking for it to be withdrawn.
Explaining why, she said: “I fully acknowledge the island is in desperate need of housing - affordable, rightsized and open market.
“I don’t, however, believe that the need should be satisfied at any cost and when it comes to field G392A, I believe that the Bridging Island Plan process has got it wrong. It is in active agricultural use and its loss is not supported by the Jersey Farmers Union.
“Any development on this field, let alone 28 units, including flats, which have been suggested, would have an enormously detrimental visual impact to the area and would deny the public of spectacular views of the countryside from the country lane of Rue des Fonds and the main road of Route des Sablons.”
Pictured: The circled fields have all be proposed for development, although Deputy Labey is calling on G392A to be withdrawn from the Island Plan.
The Deputy is backed by a number of parishioners, including environmental campaigners who do not want to see further development in the parish.
Recently, additional fields have been proposed for development by other Members, which depend on G392A being built on to prevent isolated pockets of houses.
These have been proposed by St. Martin Deputy Steve Luce, who explained: “I was approached by the Constable to lodge them because both he and the parish Deputy are conflicted as they have close family members who own fields nearby to the ones I was asked to propose.
“I requested to see the paperwork and agreed for two reasons: firstly, because I was impressed that Grouville has done quite a lot of work to ascertain demand in the parish, and secondly; a field close by [G392A] has been proposed as an affordable housing site and approved by the inspectors, which means that the fields I have proposed won’t be intrude into the countryside.”
He added: “I was therefore rather surprised when the Deputy of Grouville then lodged an amendment for field G392A to be withdrawn. If her amendment is successful, I will be withdrawing my own amendments – or at least one of them – as it only works with field G392A in the plan.
“The other field, G355, might work as a standalone as it is a strip of land, but we will have to see what happens.”
Concerning field G392A, which could provide up to 23-34 homes, parish Constable John Le Maistre said that “the jury was still out” on whether he would support the Minister’s inclusion of this field in the plan.
Constable Le Maistre said that G355 was owned by one of his brothers so he would not be taking part in that particular debate. He would also withdraw from Deputy Labey’s G392A withdrawal amendment as that field and G355, which are on opposite sides of Rue des Fonds, would be considered as a single development, if approved.
Other Grouville fields are being proposed for development by St. Helier No. 1 Deputy Scott Wickenden, who said he had been asked to propose them by the landowners, which he agreed to do as they were very close to reaching the development threshold under the original scoring system for selection of sites.
Fields G508, G508A, G526, G526A and G521A are close to the corner of Rue de Fauvic and Grande Route des Sablons and are owned by Fauvic Nurseries.
Pictured: Fields which Deputy Scott Wickenden is proposing are developed, which is opposed by Grouville Constable John Le Maistre.
Constable Le Maistre said he would be opposing the amendment.
“I’m not keen at all on those being developed,” he said. “They are two large, low-lying fields which have good soil, they are regularly farmed and are also suitable for grazing.”
He added that he had “reservations” about another small cluster of fields put forward by Deputy Wickenden - G403C, G403D and part of G432A – which are close to G392A and the two other fields proposed by Deputy Luce.
“These fields are on poor quality land, but I have reservations about their development as it is stretching housing further into the countryside, which I don’t agree with,” said Constable Le Maistre.
Constable Le Maistre is also proposing development on the old De La Mare site, behind the new Co-op on Rue à Don, in field ‘G234’ and next-door land.
He said: “When the site was put forward to the Bridging Island Plan process, the Minister accepted that there were merits to the site.
“It is near two supermarkets, three bus routes, a pub and is within a 10-minute walk to Gorey Village via a purpose-built joint use cycle/pedestrian path. It is also within walking distance to Grouville School.
"The Minister did not seek to bring the site forward on the grounds of visual impact and its proximity to Grouville Marsh, which is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI).
He added: “While my amendment seeks to secure the rezoning of part of field G234 and the adjacent land, the remainder of field G234 remains within the same ownership and it is proposed that any rezoning would be conditional on the provision of a 15-metre environment buffer zone between the built development and the SSI. This will enhance the environmental value of the land and provide a safeguard for the SSI.”
The Bridging Island Plan will be debated during a marathon States sitting, which is due to begin on 14 March.
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.