Our environment is under attack

JERSEY’S countryside is under attack as building developments erode the Island’s natural environment, says the Action for Wildlife chairman.
Pete Double said that building along Les Mielles coast; plans to extend landfill east of St Helier, scrapping the Island Plan 2002 and re-writing it and the Plémont affair are all attacks on Jersey’s special environment to combat the Island’s current ‘population explosion’.
In a letter to the JEP he said: ‘It seems to me that Jersey’s natural environment is under siege at the moment, even more so than it is normally.’ Mr Double says that the government now seems to think it is perfectly acceptable to invade the green zone and their excuse is to blame Jersey’s ageing population.
He maintains that politicians must protect Jersey’s mix of country lanes, agricultural landscapes, a priceless intertidal zone, woodland valleys, fauna and flora. (thisisjersey)

It is important to keep the countryside, the enviroment is important...

I'm a supporter of 'the environment', but there is a case to be made to use some un-developed land for useful purpose.

I think that the Planning Dept. needs to start being more consistent in it's approach to planning applications, and desperately needs to stop living in the past. There's nothing wrong with good development, and that's what architects would like to build; but can't because Planning force horrid pastiches or 'traditional' styles on us.

What should be done with land zoned to agriculture that is worthless to farmers for that purpose? leave it to rot? I don't think that's a good solution.

What compensation should be expected by those property owners who find the goal posts moved and their land devalued? not just as an investment, but as the land they wish to use for their family lives.

The answer, or one answer, to avoid building on 'green zones' would to build up on already developed areas, like the waterfront; but it's largely the same opponents of building on the green zones that oppose this too. They oppose change rather than any specific development it seems. What do they offer as alternatives?

I hate the claims of people like the National Trust for Jersey that 'development x' on the north coast shouldn't be allowed because it will attract traffic and people en mass and it'll ruin the cliff path, and this must be protected for the enjoyment of all. What if all of us tried to go and enjoy those cliff paths each weekend? they'd be destroyed by 160,000 footfalls in no time.

The reason there isn't that number of footfalls? because most people don't care to go and 'enjoy' the paths, it's only those members of the NT, many of whom can enjoy the views from the houses they already own on the north coast, that do.

The answer? My answer?

Build up in St Helier: Allow buildings to go up as high as the Fort Regent at the east of the town, La Pouquelaye to the north and West mount to the west.

Insist on quality and space, particularly for residential developments. An apartment can be a family home, but it needs space for that family. A balcony is no use as outside space if it's the size that some developments have and you can't fit the dinner table on it, proper space within each dwelling.

are you a local Troy??

Troy i cannot agree with most of your post , so you would like to see more like the carbuncle hotel you have and the waterfront ,you also say that fields are worthless well i would prefer to see grass than concrete and what is exactly wrong with traditional styles ?

As for the footpaths if they are the same as the ones we have here they are special (no i am not a member of the NT) they give you a chance to take a walk in the peace and quiet and away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life.I don't know what people think of your cliff paths over there but i think you would find that over here they are well used and loved by a lot of people.

As for apartments that's fine but not ideal for family with kids with no where to play ,and you must have seen what high rises in the UK have done to some places they are no go areas for the local police and residents alike .

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:are you a local Troy??

Yes.

Digger wrote:...so you would like to see more like the carbuncle hotel you have and the waterfront ...

No. Quite clearly I've made the

Digger wrote: be to have quality developments.

The Waterfront hotel is a terrible design and of poor quality; more than that it was a mistake from a planning point of view too, as it wasn't needed and the site should've been used better for an alternative developement.

But that's another issue in itself.
[quote="Digger"]...you also say that fields are worthless well i would prefer to see grass than concrete...

The fields I'm talking about are worthless because they're zoned for agriculture and not fit for that purpose. They're left empty and to become overgrown, nobody ever visits, uses or enjoys them; which to me seems a waste.

Digger wrote:...what is exactly wrong with traditional styles?...

Context. In the C16th a farmhouse would be built in granite with small windows because this was an abundant local material that could be worked using the technology available. That home would be heated with an open fire and chimney, and most likely the fire would be cooked over too. Today we have access to better(taking into account use, abundance and cost) materials, better technologies, that enable larger windows and we rarely use open fires for heating or cooking. So I hate to see developments with fake granite features, and plastic chimney pots for appearance alone. Where is today's conteporary design? What will future generations save as examples of the best of C21st?

Digger wrote:...they give you a chance to take a walk in the peace and quiet and away from the hustle and bustle of everyday life...

Only because a relatively low number of people use them. If we were to all wanting to be using them as is the NT's assertion then they would be ruined, so instead the majority miss the oppourtunity to have places they would like to see be developed to save these seemingly sacred paths for the few. I believe areas can be properly developed that would allow the co-existence of all, but the absolute attitude of the NT and others prevents this liberal view.

Digger wrote:...As for apartments that's fine but not ideal for family with kids with no where to play...

Exactly my point that any high-rise developement would need to be designed with adequate space for the intended occupants. Gardens are fantastic, but if you want to house a population and give everybody a garden you're gonna need to do this at ground level, which mean spreading out, which means using green zones... You can't have it all-ways

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:It's all about greed and destroying the country side...

Is it Pete, is it really? So a farmer who wants to build a home for his son on worthless agricultural land he owns, but is prevented from doing so because it's apparently agricultural land is greedy is he?
The couple who'd like to have the space they'd like to raise a family without the additional stress of living almost literally in a single room are greedy?
What about me, am I greedy because I'd like to be able to afford decent living accommodation? Does my wish for better architectural design mean I want to destroy the countryside?

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:...This time it’s not the sound of jackboot but the sound of suited mobs.

What would you do without the safety of a Nazi reference to make somebody sound evil Pete? :roll:

Pete Burtenshaw wrote:It's all about greed and destroying the country side. I feel for the Jersey people who are left in the island who actually care about their island but can not stop this concrete madness. This time it’s not the sound of jackboot but the sound of suited mobs.

It maybe concrete madness in your Island, but I think we have just about got it right over here