Plemont Debate in Tweets

My last post on the Plemont debate is more or less that debate compressed into tweets. There is something exciting though, if you follow the debate by Twitter, because instead of the long winded speeches (apparently they were told to keep them short, but it did take most of the day), you have brevity and pace.

One somewhat belligerent Facebook poster will have to dine on humble pie tonight. He grumbled angrily online at the start of the debate:

"Think that they are going to listen.... It has to be bought by NT only, even if they have to borrow from the the states (us)..... by the time dust has settled on this saga, it will have cost over £10m.... anyone voting to buy this package unconditionally, will NOT BE GETTING MY VOTE AT THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION. .... and I would encourage others to do the same."

As there was one abstention, and 11 against, some of whom are not even in his district, he will be rather hard put to vote for anyone in the next election. He will be able to vote for Deputy Sean Power, who voted against it, and probably for none of the existing Senators!

As I predicted, the core of the debate was not to buy Plemont, which was pretty much a foregone conclusion, but how to fund it, and whether Senator Ozouf's mechanism was legitimate. Apparently, according to the Solicitor General, it was, which opens a whole can of worms by way of setting precedent for this kind of "money-go-round", and also suggest that money could have been funnelled in this way for the historical abuse inquiry if that indirect route had been suggested.

I still stand by my words in my last blog:

"It is not exactly money laundering, but it seems very close to that, moving money from one place to another to conceal its point of origin. It is certainly setting a dangerous precedent to allow 'earmarked funds' to be moved around by the Treasury Minister in such convoluted ways as to 'grab' the cash into other projects or intentions."

Notice, please, that perhaps unlike some others, certainly on Twitter, I never said it was money laundering but shared a family resemblance to that. I do choose my words carefully.

In the end, it was a tussle between the poetry and the prose, and the poetic won over the more prosaic. I think members realised that Philip Ozouf's mechanism for funding was not exactly satisfactory, but in the end, they took the pragmatic decision that it was better to look at the bigger picture, rather than worry too much about the murky mechanisms for getting there.

I do hope that schools organise trips to walk round the headland once it has been restored. There are certainly kids in town schools who never get out into the countryside much, and who have probably never ever visited Plemont. If Plemont is to be a legacy to our children, it must be a legacy that all Island children have the opportunity to visit, not just those who have the means to do so. Heritage must be for everyone, and only then will it be worth while.

Plemont Debate in Tweets

christianrmay @NatTrustJersey Members declare themselves in the States as the debate gets underway...

Channel103News 12 States Members declare an interest as members of the @NatTrustJersey at start of #plemont debate

DeputyTadier Plémont deb8 is 1 of the most important ever. Unfortunately, it will be dominated by legitimate concerns over the convoluted funding method

Athena_Kallias @DeputyTadier If any of them have an ounce of morality, they will vote for Plemont, I understand the implications of the funding method

nelsonpk75 @DeputyTadier I understand the point. The principal is whether to approve the grant, not where exactly the funds come from.

DeputyTadier @nelsonpk75 fundamentally disagree. The proposition is badly worded and PO has made it controversial with an inflammatory funding mechanism

CarolynLabey Wearing green. It's Plemont.

christianrmay Public in Public Gallery reminded by DB that Standing Orders prohibit clapping and other audible support of speakers during debate.

DeputyMacon Quite a full public gallery in the States today for the buying of Plémont proposition. The debate behind.

christianrmay Senator Bailhache succinctly lays out his Proposition for grant to NTfJ to purchase Plemont. Dept. Duhamel on his feet to give counter.

RussellLabey Senator Bailhache "it's the duty of the States to protect agricultural land"not alas in St Ouen with the contemptuous proposal for field 622

christianrmay Over @ChangeJersey there is a opinion article written by Christopher Harris of @NatTrustJersey on their position re Plemont. Take a look!

JEPnews 1/2 Environment Minister Rob Duhamel is the first to speak during today's #Plémont debate. He is opposing the move to help buy the land.

JEPnews 2/2 Deputy Duhamel says that according to the 'Jersey grapevine', another potential #Plémont buyer also wants to buy the site.

SamMezec Environment Minister says he has heard of a potential buyer for Plémont who wants to build just one house and give 95% back to nature.

christianrmay I think precedent being set using COCF (vicariously) as source of funds for Plemont will raise the most concern in the coming debate.

JEPnews Deputy Duahmel says he does not support using tax payers' money to help buy #Plémont because its not good 'value for money'.

christianrmay Members supportive f the purchase of Plemont but not in favour of the funding method - I can see this being repeated several times today.

seanpowerjersey Plemont debate started. The funding will be the main issue.

seanpowerjersey First time in 9 years in the States that I have seen so many lobbyists in the gallery

JEPnews Deputy Gerard Baudains supports the buying of #Plémont, but not the proposed indirect funding from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund.

RicoSorda Housing Minister forgets to mention the funding #plemont cooking the books is not worth a mention. lol Carry on up the states.

Channel103News Environment Minister claims another buyer for #plemont is waiting in the wings and wants to build 1 house and return 95% to nature.

Channel103News Dep Baudains says he can't support #plemont purchase because cash confiscated from criminals will be used. 'Improper use of fund'

Channel103News Dep Andrew Green berates Environ Min for expressing a view against #plemont purchase and urges States to support it.

JEPnews St Helier Deputy Judy Martin says that most Islanders she's spoken to don't want the States
to spend £3.575 million to help buy #Plémont.

RicoSorda Deputy of St Martin supports cooking the books. What a government #plemont Carry on up the States @SamMezec

SamMezec Looks like funding mechanism for Plémont purchase is proving controversial. Unsurprising. Very strange method proposed.

christianrmay Dept. Martin highlights serious plight of St Clements residents who packed in so tightly they cant turn around without hitting each other.

christianrmay But, on a serious note, the issue arises again that the process of funding is 'fraud' or 'money laundering'.

JEPnews 1/2 St Helier Deputy Mike Higgins has questioned the lawfulness of using the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund to help buy #Plémont.

JEPnews 2/2 But the Solicitor General has ruled that the method outlined is lawful. #Plémont.

Channel103News SG has been quizzed about the lawfulness of using confiscated proceeds of crime for #Plemont purchase. Howard Sharp says it's ok.

JEPnews 1/2 Here's how the Treasury Minister has proposed to fund the States portion of the #Plémont purchase...

JEPnews £3.5m from Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund > new police station. £3.5m from that project > Chief Mins Dept > National Trust for Jersey.

JennBridge @JennBridge Look at the history of successful applications for moneys from the funds - very narrow & specific

christianrmay @JennBridge @JEPnews Relying upon de Smiths Judicial review of Administrative Action "If the actor has in truth used his power for the ½

christianrmay @JennBridge @JEPnews purposes for which it was conferred, it is thus immaterial that he was enabled to achieve a subsidiary object 2/2

JennBridge @christianrmay @JEPnews Indeed. So let's call it a "mechanism" then.

seanpowerjersey Yet again the debate on Plemont splits the public and the Assembly. Suspect this debate will win or lose on use of COCF funds.

seanpowerjersey Treasury and Treasurer are in an impossible position with Plemont funding. Can only imagine the discussion behind the scenes at CLMH

JennBridge @christianrmay @JEPnews As PO would say "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck....."

JennBridge "Clapped out" is not parliamentary language but "on its last legs" is OK. Is there is list somewhere?

christianrmay @JennBridge less Wikipedia there is! UK gets as extreme as "Git" or "Tart". Canada much more fun with "trained seal" & "Canadian Mussolini"

Channel103News Dep Southern: Crime confiscation fund use for #plemont 'a fix and a fiddle' for Treasury Minister's 'pet project'

seanpowerjersey Southern: on Plemont; this is like bend it with Beckham except in this case (COCF funds ) bend it like Ozouf

JennBridge ...and yet when they were looking for funding for the CoI - no one suggested this type of "mechanism".

LeahFergusonITV Major sticking point in buying Plemont debate is where money is coming from. Treasury plan to use criminal confiscation fund to free up cash

LeahFergusonITV Treasury's idea of moving money from criminal fund to pay for Plemont in round about way dubbed 'money laundering' by some politicians.

JEPnews St Clement Constable Len Norman says he's had 20 or 30 emails, calls and letters that were evenly split on the move to help buy #Plémont.

JEPnews St Ouen Deputy James Reed was asked by the Deputy Bailiff earlier to remove a 'Love #Plémont' campaign card displayed on his desk.

JennBridge Deputy of St Ouen speaking. I have to disagree. Key difference is that Town Park is in the densest part of town with least open space.

DeputyTadier Deputy James read tells Health Minister to 'Get her act together.' @bbcjersey @itvchanneltv

SoJRingbinder I wish States Members would stop referring to Sen Maclean's ringbinder voting for the Town Park. I voted for the Town Park in my own right!

JEPnews It wasn't going to be long before someone suggested that offenders help clean up #Plemont. Constable Sadie Rennard says that could be done.

JEPnews St John Constable Phil Rondel managing to link his favourite topic - mains drains - to the #Plémont debate.
Tue, Jul 01 12:02:44 from Twitter Web Client

seanpowerjersey Flail rattling speech by Deputy of St. Ouen on supporting Plemont. Saliva deposits highly likely on bald dome of Deputy Green in front

Channel103News Const Rondel: Can't support #plemont purchase while 'middle Jersey is still hurting'

Channel103News States Members praised for a good debate so far, but now asked only to speak if they have something new to add.

bbcjersey Public gallery very busy, fifty plus people, who have been asked not to applaud or make other noise during debate on Plemont ^cs

bbcjersey Most of the members objecting are unhappy with how it would be funded. Fudge, fiddle and fix says Deputy Southern ^cs

bbcjersey But constable Len Norman is the first to say he believes it will go through

JennBridge @SimonCrowcroft makes a good point about the environmental problems of (re) introducing buildings/humans & pets e.g cats into the area.

christianrmay Proposal under Standing Order 84 to close the debate and move to vote likely in next 30mins now notice given

JEPnews Chief Minister Ian Gorst is speaking about legacy and asking Members to support #Plémont so it can become part of the Chamber's record.

seanpowerjersey Fairly certain that this Plemont proposition will go through now with a clear majority.

bbcjersey Senator Ozouf's funding proposal for Plemont is a good one, says Chief Minister

seanpowerjersey Treasury use and recommendation on use of COCF funds for Plemont is a very creative use of funds. Treasury and SG reluctant warriors here

JEPnews Environment Minister Rob Duhamel has 'left his heart behind' in opposing a plan to help buy #Plémont, Deputy John Young has said.

edwardjnoel Happy to support Plemont prop as 2 core issues now addressed, comp purchase and certainty of purchase price, hope those members ....1/2

edwardjnoel 2/2 hope those members who support Plemont 2day will support capital funding for fort regent in the next assembly when 2016/19 MTFP debated

JennBridge @johnyhil Deputy Young reminds the Chamber that we only spend 1% of Jersey's budget on the environment. He says "it's not an or it's an &".

TheVoiceJersey Aquiring #plemont thru a Robert Mugabe style land-grab was not palatable 2 most States Members. Will acquisition thru money laundering work?

Channel103News #plemont debate has broken for lunch. Back at 2.15pm.

lyndonfarnham I predict strong support for Proposition to assist @NatTrustJersey with funding to acquire the Plemont headland:

christianrmay Hoping to to hear @philipozouf speak on funding Plemont. Treasury found a viable & legal solution to an urgent demand for funds from COCF.

bbcjersey Make sure islanders with less ability to express their needs are heard, amid well educated Plemont debate - the Dean

bbcjersey If necessary I will look again at where to get the money for Plemont, but it must come from somewhere; Sen. Ozouf

christianrmay Treasury Minister @philipozouf makes it clear that it is not a binary choice between Plemont grant OR Healthcare.

hannahwalkerCI Treasury Min @philipozouf says he backs the plans to buy Plemont and says members should think of what the 'right thing is for Jersey'

JEPnews A brief pause in the #Plémont debate just now to find the off switch of a flickering light above Deputy Bailiff Willam Bailhache.

Channel103News Senator Le Gresley says tourists come to the island to see our coast & Plemont should be bought for the people of Jersey, and the tourists

christianrmay Proposition to close debate on Plemont and move to vote defeated 25 - 17. Debate continues.

JerseyJustice23 You've been warned States members ..Don't upset the Deputy Bailiff by making your own submissions to the assembly if he deems them irrelevant

bbcjersey Deputy le Herissier is tempted to change his mind and support Plemont plan, if he gets public access guarantees

hannahwalkerCI @NickLeCornu 'if we can find £3.5 million for Plemont, why can't we deal with poverty in the island?

Channel103News Senator Sir Philip Bailhache is now summing up. Vote on Plemont is imminent

seanpowerjersey Did not speak as everything has been said and everyone has made their minds up. Legacies like Plemont will come again with demands for funds

seanpowerjersey The next Plemont type legacy problem site may well be in St. Brelades Bay. Another clamour for public funds will no doubt happen again soon

JEPnews #Plémont vote coming in the next few minutes.

bbcjersey It was approved! Only eleven members voted against, 35 in favour - Plemont will be returned to nature! Cheers from the public gallery.

seanpowerjersey Assembly supported the Plemont site by a sizeable majority. Future approach to using public funds to acquire problem legacy sites unclear

seanpowerjersey 11 of us voted against Plemont and method of using COCF funds to assist NT Jersey in acquiring this legacy site of historic poor planning

LeahFergusonITV BREAKING: Jersey States votes FOR buying Plemont. 35 in favour, 11 against.

Channel103News States Members have voted to buy Plemont by 35 votes to 11, with one abstention

Plemont: The Day of Judgement Arrives

"I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak" (Matthew 12:36)

Well, today is the day that Plemont gets debated and possibly voted on, depending on how long the speeches are. There will be people meeting in the Royal Square to show support for the proposition, and certainly a degree of lobbying behind the scenes is likely to have taken place.

I'm still not happy with the rather devious re-routing of funds from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund to pay for Plemont. I know that this is not happening directly, but as the sums involved in the transfer of funds to the Police HQ budget, and then the use of unused funds there to be returned to the Chief Minister's department exactly match, effectively it is a straight transfer from one place to another.

It is not exactly money laundering, but it seems very close to that, moving money from one place to another to conceal its point of origin. It is certainly setting a dangerous precedent to allow 'earmarked funds' to be moved around by the Treasury Minister in such convoluted ways as to 'grab' the cash into other projects or intentions - made worse still when those projects are sponsored or supported by the Minister himself.

And yet the solution probably lies within Philip Ozouf's hands, as he has just presented to the States, on 30th June 2014, a "Budget Management Report for the Period Ended 31st December 2013"

In the section entitled "Infrastructure Investments ", the report states that:

"During the 6 month period to 31st December 2013, the Minister approved the issuance of a £13,000,000 infrastructure investment from the Currency Fund to provide the States of Jersey Development Company with financing for part of the underground car park, subject to conditions (MD-TR-2013-0095). Note that at present it is not planned that this investment will proceed."

As Save Our Shoreline have noted, the car park has been put into mothballs for the time being, and the money allocated is not going to be used. Why not retract it, and use part of it for Plemont?

Why does the owner/developer want to sell at this point? I can't really see him motivated by some kind of benign altruism, for surely he would then gift the land. I think it is much more the case that the developer would prefer a return now, if he can get it, rather than incur capital cost of site clearance, and building new homes in a time of property slump.

The National Trust were able to secure a deal where the developer probably makes around 2- 3 million on his original investment, perhaps not as much as the sale of property - but he would have associated costs and perhaps loans to take out first to fund the project, with interested incurred on those.

Meanwhile, battle lines are drawn, and Deputy Rob Duhamel is surprisingly valuing the land in more economic terms than the Treasury Minister. He says:

 "At a cost of between £5,000 to £10,000 per vergee and by taking a mid-point figure of £7,500 per vergee, £3.575 million would in theory buy approximately 476 vergees of non-agricultural land. This is nearly 60 times the proposed built on area of the Plémont development (8 vergees) which is not already being returned to public accessible natural landscape. In contributing £3.575 million, it could be argued that the States are supporting the purchase of 8 vergees of non-agricultural land at an approximate cost of at least £446,000 per vergee. This sum excludes the contribution being made by the NTJ. This does not represent good value for money."

"There is some environmental benefit in the States supporting the National Trust for Jersey in purchasing the Plémont Holiday Village and adjoining land at a cost of £7.15 million. I am sure that in a perfect world, returning built land to its natural state would be welcomed by many islanders and by the Minister for Planning and Environment."

"However, I do not believe providing a grant of £3.575 million to return eight vergees of land on the North coast of the island to a natural state offers the island good value for money. Only a small number of islanders will benefit from the acquisition of this small and very expensive piece of land."

I think that the key factor in the debate will not be the purchase of Plemont, but how it is to be funded, and in particular - as it is the only proposal on the table - whether Philip Ozouf's suggestion will sway the House enough to establish what could be a very dangerous precedent, and moreover one which was rejected when similarly sourced funding for the Historical Abuse Enquiry was suggested.

By setting out only one option for funding the purchase of Plemont, and not keeping his options open, Philip Ozouf may have wrecked the very proposal he set out to support.

For other posts on Plemont, please see:

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/06/plemont-some-thoughts.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/06/guest-post-on-plemont-by-michael-de-pre.html
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/06/guest-post-on-plemont-by-adam-gardiner.html

And Bob Hill's blog posting - with a debate in the comments at:

http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2014/06/plemont-headland-contrived-debate.html
http://bobhilljersey.blogspot.com/2014/06/plemont-2-more-dirty-deeds-afoot.html

See also Mark Forskitt at:
http://st-ouennais.livejournal.com/169270.html

On the use of the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund not being available for the Historical Abuse Enquiry, see Voice for Children's blog at:
http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/02/cocf-could-be-used.html

And for my narrative poem on what Plemont could be, see
http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/06/plemont.html

Guest post on Plemont by Adam Gardiner

One of my regular correspondents has been in touch, not about the principle of saving Plemont, but the fine print on ownership (and access), and the ways and means by which funding is suggested by Philip Ozouf.

 

This is in some respect, although it makes the points differently, along the same lines as Bob Hill's post on Plemont.

 

My own feelings to date are that the issue of access needs to be addressed. This is extremely important, and if the States are going to fund the National Trust in its purchase, there need to be strings attached so that the public will have right of way, without hindrance or charge, to the headland.

 

Secondly, the source for funding is certainly a matter of concern. The ability of Philip Ozouf to conjure up a "contingency fund", like pulling a rabbit out of a hat, is wearing thin, and more details are needed. Unfortunately, the quick way in which he has suggested diverting funds suggests that the Treasury Minister is not a careful steward of the States finances, but every so often is prone to what can perhaps be best described as the antics of an opportunistic chancer, just as able to throw caution to the winds as his erstwhile colleague, Senator Maclean, was with his fantasy film.

 

His own version of "robbing Peter to pay Paul" strikes me as a book keeping subterfuge. The BBC described it thus:

 

"As money from the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund (COCF) can only be used towards the cost of policing, Senator Philip Ozouf has proposed a novel solution. His plan would see the money taken from the COCF and transferred to the fund for moving the States of Jersey police to a new building, which would then be constructed on the site. Money from that fund will then be given to the Chief Minister's department which will then issue the grant."

 

It has to be asked why he couldn't have done that when asked to take money from the COCF for funding the Historic Abuse Enquiry, when he replied to a question on that subject as follows:

 

"Having consulted with H.M. Attorney General, I have reached the view that monies in the Criminal Offences Confiscation Fund ("COCF") are unlikely to be capable of being applied for the purpose of funding the cost of a Committee of Inquiry into historical child abuse."

 

Now he finds a mechanism by which that can be done, which apparently was not possibly before!

 

Is he a fit person to re-elect to look after the Island's finances? Far more than last time, Plemont will, I think, be a potential election issue for these reasons.

 

Guest post on Plemont by Adam Gardiner

 

The Plemont debate takes another twist.

 

I am content to accept that at £3.5m the opportunity to bring the land into public ownership in perpetuity is a reasonable proposition and in the circumstances probably the best compromise. But that said:

 

First. It is not strictly public ownership. Accessible to the public maybe, but it would be owned by the National Trust who would be free to restrict access if they so wished - or charge for the privilege maybe. Whether they all or not remains to be seen - but the important thing is, that possibility exists but has not been discussed or forms part of the proposition While the visual and environmental gain is obvious and a clear asset to the Island the National Trust is and remains a private organisation.

 

So should public money be used so that can add to their portfolio of property?

 

In respect of that be considered as an 'investment' I might agree with but for the fact that an investment is usually made to provide some later and tangible collateral or profit on re-sale. So if the Jersey public, through the States, make such the 'investment', what is the taxpayers stake in all of this - other that the being able to enjoy an improved visual landscape? While that may be enough for some - I am not convinced that is good enough. The term investment' seems rather misleading as in effect what we have here is little more than a taxpayer-funded gift to a private organisation.

 

If however it were a loan it could be better described as an investment even if the terms of the loan were spread over many years at a very modest rate of interest. So far I have heard little about that as an alternative proposition. I am sure it has, but little prominence has been given to this as an option, although it would be fair to say that until it goes to debate we won't know if some politicians may propose and that as a preferred option.

 

My second point relates to what now it is suggested, that the money would come from  the Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund. Creative thinking on the part of Philip Ozouf it may be, but here we go again plundering cash assets for purposes that were never designed to be used for. The Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund was established to provide sufficient funding to the police and enforcement agencies to tackle high-level and often complex crime - money laundering and illegal trading in hard drugs being two very key areas. Under Philip Ozouf's proposal are we now to accept that Jersey's ability to detect and prosecute serious crime may well suffer from lack of available funds?

 

I would liken that to the taxes raised from motor vehicle ownership which were said to be necessary to maintain our roads infrastructure and then force the legislation designed to our keep roads safe. Those taxes are not inconsiderable and there are in fact 3 separate taxes which are applied to fuel: Duty, 5% road tax levy and GST. With Jersey having one of the highest car-ownership ratios in Europe, over half of what we pay for fuel goes straight into States coffers. Remember however, that 5% road tax levy. Even at a very rough estimate that generates something between £20-£30m a year. Yet for that income, TTS do not have a road maintenance budget anything like that. No, that 5% goes into general revenue and redistributed elsewhere. The purpose for which the 5% was added is not used for that purpose - which is my point.

 

The Criminal Offences Confiscations Fund must similarly not be used for ay purpose other than what it was designed for in my view. It otherwise becomes a fund in name only that can be distributed to wherever the Minister for T&R wishes - and sets a dangerous precedent.

 

So, what we have in Plemont remains a can of worms. Very easy to go down the populist route and pander to those who feel it should be bought at any cost and would see it as an investment and support the proposition as stands, but I am not convinced that the formula is yet right, fair or equitable with the wider public. The National Trust are obviously influential, vociferous and tenacious … but that sounds rather more the description of a bully. Frankly that is exactly what is happening here. You can detect generally that the vast majority don't care either way. However, those who question and oppose the scheme are unfairly bullied by the National Trust which leaves just a small number of supporters who have been sold on this wonderful prospect of acquiring land for the benefit of the public. A noble and just reason perhaps but I think in having that good intention it ignores the fact that other matters will suffer as a result especially if the States simply 'gift' this £3.5m rather than:

 

(i) properly invest it either by way of making a loan to the national Trust or

(ii) buying it outright and leasing to the National Trust.

 

One other option perhaps is to consider is whether the project could be put over to direct public subscription; the States form a PPP. The national Trust could still become a major stakeholder but it would avoid using any taxpayers money at all and it's supporters would get opportunity to put their money where their mouth is. Would be interesting at least to see if they would.

 

So while in broad terms the latest compromise seems equitable, many doubts still linger in my mind.

 

Plemont

For my Saturday poem this week, with a decision pending next week in the States over helping the National Trust buy the Plemont headland, I thought I'd turn my eye towards that. While there are grounds for prudence over financial decisions, I think there really can be only one choice if you look at Plemont as a poet.
 
Plemont
 
Windswept headland, craggy coast:
This is Plemont, at times the most
Desolate of places, when the rain
Beats down, and cold wind again
Blows over that shore, up ravines,
And chilling to bones by any means;
I went there at Easter, took my girl
To see the waves break and curl
Among those rocks; a place of joy:
Except for sailors, where land ahoy,
Means strong currents, dashing hard;
And yet above, the headland scarred,
By the broken remains, ugly, burnt,
Holiday camp in decay, undercurrent
Of neglect, of being left to rot away,
Where only rats now come to play;
In tourism's golden years, long ago
They came in droves; a camp aglow
With happy laughter of families here
But the future price to pay, so dear
Camp emptied, left, relic of past glory
And this was also the sad, sad, story
Of how Plemont came to be. And after
Plans for houses And no more laughter;
Just profound sadness at this final loss;
But now perhaps a chance, to move across
From despair to hope, to see once more
So wild and beautiful above the shore:
Plemont as it once was, a new creation
Waiting to be born, now in gestation;
And dare I hope, generations yet unborn
Will not have to despair and mourn;
But instead, the land will return to us all,
And we shall hear again the puffin's call,
And rejoice this day, when words spoken,
Decisions taken, restored what was broken;
To heal the land, above the seas great deep.
We will make a promise that we will keep;
The gorse flowers yellow, shining bright
And the scent of heather to give delight;
All of wild nature in her glorious dance:
This awaits us, if we seize the chance;
So let us not give in, or rue the day,
And let us not give in to dread dismay,
Let us rejoice, that we did all we could:
To save this coast for the common good.
 

Guest Post on Plemont by Michael du Pre

Michael responded to my blog by email, and has kindly agreed to make public this response for a wider audience. My original blog is here - to see the points A-C which he comments upon below.

http://tonymusings.blogspot.com/2014/06/plemont-some-thoughts.html

While I think the proposition (as it stands) has some flaws, notably about guarantees to the States on ownership should the National Trust run into financial difficulties (on which his comments are also pertinent), there is also a deadline to all of this, as Michael reminded me.

Because of that, I think one would have to accept the proposition, flawed though it is - the second flawed on Plemont, but not quite as flawed as before (as it does not involve compulsory purchase or a "blank cheque" approach which was really unacceptable). This is a chance which will be unlikely to come our way again.

And Michael also makes some very good points below in favour in as well. Please read his response carefully.

Guest Post by Michael du Pre, chairman, Save Our Shoreline

As you will know, we are in favour of the States purchase so I have only addressed the objections that you listed.

My comments:

(a) GST: Assuming that next year, or the year after, there would be no need to raise GST  for other reasons, the purchase of Plemont at this knock down price would mean that the GST rate would have to be raised for one year only to 5.2%.

But this is (unlike GST which is a revenue item) a Capital item.

To explain the difference, this means that the Income and expenditure budget in future years should only be charged, not with £3.5m, but with the cost of the annual usage of the asset. (e.g. office furniture, one tenth; a building, one fiftieth etc). If we assumed that Plemont's 'use' to the island would disappear after 100 years we would have to charge this years Income and Expenditure account with 1/100th of £3.5m, that is £35,000, which is hardly a worrying figure. In actuality it has an infinite number of years use so even that figure is overstated.

Of course, we might have to go out and borrow the £3.5m. This would cost 3.5% of the capital sum which would amount to an interest charge of £122,000 but, against these (in States terms relatively tiny) costs one has to take into account the tourism, education, and health and well being etc invisible benefits.

(b) surely it is the urban residents who stand to gain most by having an additional recreational facility which will become more accessible by the introduction of more car parking facilities and a more attractive 'joined up' coast line away from the hustle and pollution of the town?

As for the 'class' argument; I have walked with many different walking clubs in my past and know that such activity cuts right across class barriers. Similarly, with opera, where I have met many new recruits to this form of music from all classes. Again accessibility is the thing and of course if there is no facility, a wide range of people will never get the chance to try it out and grow to appreciate and like it.

(c) Having examined the Nation Trust's accounts, I tend not to agree with their Treasurer's view that they are in such a 'parlous state'. They have £5m of investments and £1m of land and Buildings. Their recent revenue losses are tiny in comparison and they could in theory continue to make such annual losses of similar amount well into the future without running into problems. (Not that I am suggesting that they should mind you!). However, a large part of their annual income comes from donations and, after having scraped the barrel in respect of agreeing to put up the first £3.5m, they need to be very cautious for a few years to come. Therefore, I do not think that the proposal that they take on a loan in respect of the second tranche is a good one.

Michael