Select a region
Doubling the size of the Coastal National Park to 30% of the Island represents a “land grab” and will stop people going about their daily lives, opponents to the proposal have said.
The current 2,145-hectare park, which covers 16% of Jersey, was created as part of the current 2011 Island Plan, largely in response to Islanders’ calls for greater protection of the coast and countryside, most visibly demonstrated when 7,000 people formed ‘a line in the sand’ along St. Ouen’s Bay in 2009.
The three-year 'Bridging Island Plan' – which is currently being reviewed by independent planning inspectors – proposes its extension to include more areas of St. Ouen and the ‘agricultural plateau’ covering the northern parishes.
If accepted, it would also include the Island’s inter-tidal zone and the offshore reefs.
Not everyone, however, supports the current proposal, with politicians, planning consultants and farmers telling the inspectors today that consultation had been lacking, the new boundaries did not make sense, and the higher level of protection would disproportionally constrain those people living in the extended park.
Pictured: The proposed extension to the Coastal National Park is in green.
One of those, Deputy Richard Renouf, has proposed an amendment calling for the States Assembly to define the nature of Jersey’s Coastal National Park, which unlike the UK is currently a only planning designation, with the way it is managed not part of the Environment Minister’s remit.
Deputy Renouf said: “I would support a proper extension of boundaries of Coastal National Park but it needs to be considered properly and the trouble with the evidence base at the moment is that is arose out of a single workshop held during a time of covid emergency when people’s minds were on other things.
“The proposal lumps together so many areas identified as having different qualities, so we have a conglomerate comprising 30% of the island which I think is inappropriate and it is not clear what the effects of that will be because of the management implications and the confusion that has arisen.
“The study that underpinned it suggests that the interior agricultural plateau should be put together with our coastal national plain, and be spoken as a single national park.
“I believe that extending the park to different landscapes will actually diminish the protection of the sensitive landscapes that currently sit within it.”
Pictured: The Bridging Island Plan is being examined all this week, and the week after next, at the Société Jersiaise in Pier Road.
Constable Richard Vibert of St. Peter voiced similar concerns, asking why roads had been chosen to mark the boundary of the part rather than fields.
“All areas under consideration for the extension are already in the green zone, he said. “I cannot understand the reason why we need another layer of protection over that.
“I am concerned that we are going to see situation where someone wanting to put up a 6x4 garden shed will be told it is not acceptable.”
Independent planning consultant Michael Stein said it had attended the workshop and was told that field boundaries were not strong enough, which was why road boundaries were used.
“That was basically a land grab,” he said, adding that the attendees there were those who would have would have voted in favour of the extension regardless.
The Government’s Head of Space and Spatial Planning, Kevin Pilley, who is representing the Environment Minister at the hearings, said that the minister wanted to see stronger protection for “the best bits of coast and country within the island” and he considered extending the park was the best way to achieve that.
Mr Pilley also denied that there had been a lack of consultation, which he said had fully complied with the term of the Island Plan law.
Strategic matters
Housing (part 1)
West of island (day 3)
Natural environment
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.