Select a region
Residents living close to a field earmarked to be quarried have said they will not give up the fight after planning inspectors supported ‘safeguarding’ it for mineral extraction.
They argue that the independent inspectors reviewing the three-year draft ‘Bridging Island Plan’ have based their decision on incomplete data, they have not properly addressed the environmental and ecological impact of quarrying it, and have failed to analyse the possibility of using modern alternatives to rock in construction.
They have also questioned the independence of the reports on which the inspectors based their decision.
The expansion of La Gigoulande quarry in St. Peter’s Valley was first proposed in the draft plan when it was published in April.
In it, Environment Minister John Young calls for the next-door ‘Field MY966’, which lies alongside Rue Bechervaise on the St. Peter / St. Mary border, to be ‘safeguarded’ for the quarry to expand into.
Pictured: Field MY966 forms the corner of Rue L'Aleval and Rue Bechervaise, to the south of La Gigoulande Quarry.
This met with widespread criticism from residents, politicians representing the parishes and nearby St. Lawrence and the wider public.
Hundreds submitted objections during the consultation phase last year.
However, the minister’s decision has been supported by two planning inspectors, who argue that the need to provide rock locally to build the 4,000+ homes envisaged in the plan trumps the concerns of objectors.
However, nearby residents, which includes the Greenhills Hotel, say they will fight on.
“We are extremely disappointed to read the inspectors’ report and realise that the sheer number of objections and the hundreds of detailed points raised and research provided during the consultation process and during the meeting with inspectors have been disregarded and ignored,” they said in a statement.
“What is most concerning is the message that islanders will likely glean from inspectors’ report - that the island needs to ‘safeguard’ field MY966 in order to facilitate affordable building projects in the future.
“This is at the core of the logic which supports the expansion of the quarry and is indeed an emotive angle, which distracts from the main agenda which, we believe, is far from the best interests of islanders and the protection of the ecology of Jersey.
Pictured: Manuela Milsom is one of the residents campaigning to stop the quarry's expansion.
“We want the public to realise that the quarry already owns Field MY966 and could, at any time, apply for planning application, so why have they waited for the inspectors’ report?
“Indeed, the report attempts to align safeguarding with affordable housing, despite a 30-year land bank of crushed rock, to pave the way for the rejection of Senator Kristina Moore’s proposed amendment - which was fully supported by many islanders and politicians /key figures in St Mary, St Peter and St Lawrence - which in turn may be more favourable to a positive result in the formal application for expansion of the quarry.”
They added: “Having taken some time to digest the report, we remain steadfast in our opinion that it would be wrong to extend La Gigoulande quarry and we plan to battle on against an unjust cause.
“The original points that many islanders raised during the consultation process still remain so we continue to support Senator Kristina Moore’s amendment to remove this from the BIP despite the recommendation of the inspectors.
“We will also be meeting with and discussing our conclusions with local politicians this week to fully voice our concerns and frustration that the inspectors have chosen to side almost unilaterally with the position taken by the quarry.”
Absolutely gutted but sadly not surprised that the planning inspector supports the extension of La Gigoulande quarry. We will continue to oppose the Environment Minister on this and I'll do all I can to convince States Members to throw it out.
— Kirsten Morel (@KirstenJersey) January 27, 2022
Pictured: Deputy Kirsten Morel will be supporting Senator Kristina Moore's proposal to reject the quarry's expansion.
One of those politicians, St. Lawrence Deputy Kirsten Morel, said: “I am absolutely gutted, but sadly not surprised, that the planning inspectors support the extension of La Gigoulande.
“We will continue to oppose the Environment Minister on this and I’ll do all I can to convince States Members to throw it out.”
In response, Deputy Young said: “It is very clear that the strategic issue is whether or not the island provides its construction industry materials from its own resources.
“If we don’t provide construction industry materials within the island’s natural resources in the future, then we will need to import that material.
“The inspectors judged that the importation of that material will have a significant impact on our carbon footprint, and it completely goes against the principles of sustainability, and what we’re trying to achieve with climate change.
He added: “There are practical issues as well. If we move to importation of materials, have we got the facilities and support in St. Helier to handle that?
“The evidence is we don’t for the planned period.
“The inspector considered the evidence put forward by the quarry operators that if this field wasn’t protected for future planning, it would be likely that the reserves available to the quarry would be exhausted within a short period.
“I thought those arguments are very strong. I visited the site and there are three properties within 150m of it, and there is no question that their views have not been heard.
“But the issue is for the wider interests of the island whether or not we safeguard the field.”
La Gigoulande owner Granite Products bought Field MY966 for £1.65m at the end of 2019.
INSIGHT: Island Plan...what the people REALLY care about
LISTEN...
Express explored the controversy surrounding La Gigoulande's future in a previous edition of the Bailiwick Podcast...
Subscribe to Bailiwick Podcasts on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Deezer or Whooshkaa.
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.