Jersey – where are we?

through the MSP is a brilliant opportunity to form the basis of a Marine Park.

We would like to see this 30 per cent prioritise the protection of important marine habitats which deliver for biodiversity, carbon and fisheries. The network would mirror the existing MPAs and be a space for low-impact, static forms of fishing such as potting, hook and line, netting and diving to operate and benefit from conservation.

The ambition to achieve a minimum of 30 per cent comes from a growing global movement to protect our oceans. Hundreds of leading scientists around the world have agreed that a minimum of 30 per cent of both terrestrial and marine environments must be protected to tackle the ever- pressing global biodiversity and climate crisis, which we, as a small Island, are already experiencing. Over a hundred countries are signatories to initiatives which set out the goal of protecting 30 per cent by 2030. Initiatives such as The Global Ocean Alliance and High Ambition Coalition are chaired by countries such as the UK and France. More specifically for our Island, Jersey is a signatory (by extension from the UK) to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes a section called ‘KunmingMontreal’ setting out the target of 30 by 30.

With the MSP in development, now is the perfect time for Jersey to deliver on its existing commitment to protect at least 30 per cent of its marine environment. There is also a huge amount of local evidence showcasing how multiple habitats are important for biodiversity, fisheries, carbon and people. Habitats such as seagrass, maerl, kelp, sandmason worms and shallow reefs are great examples of this, and if pooled together with a small buffer, make up over 30 per cent of Jerseys territorial waters, acting as the basis of our Marine Park boundary.

With the climate and biodiversity crisis, we must act now and the 30 by 30 campaign in Jersey is an opportunity to secure a healthy sea around Jersey for future generations.

As the Chairman of the Development Applications

Panel, I am always mindful of the Trust’s core objective to permanently protect Jersey's natural beauty, rich wildlife and historic places for everyone to enjoy and experience. It is clear that Jersey’s rural character and built heritage remain threatened, possibly more than at any other time, as a result of the pressures of unsuitable development and creeping urbanisation. The case for keeping a watchful eye on development in the Island remains compelling.

As one of the main advisory bodies to the Trust’s Council, the Panel’s remit is to help the Trust fulfil its vision by advising it on all matters relating to Jersey’s planning system. On a weekly basis, the Panel meets at The Elms and reviews all planning applications which have been advertised that week. Our particular interest is in reviewing those applications which may have a material impact on a listed building or its setting, or on areas of particular environmental sensitivity such as the Coastal National Park. On a monthly basis we review the applications which are to be considered at the Planning Committee’s meetings and consider whether or not to attend and speak at the meeting. On a quarterly basis we prepare a report to Council highlighting our activities and commenting on any trends or on specific issues which have arisen.

Our weekly meetings look at literally every planning application which is posted on the gov.je Planning portal. This in itself is a daunting task: in 2021 nearly 2,000 planning applications were made –an average of 35 per week (there has been a slight respite in 2022 with only 1,700 or so applications.) However, a significant number of these are of relatively little concern to the Panel, typically being uncontroversial development in the builtup area. Of the remainder, our principal job is to review the applications in the context of the prevailing Planning law and policy and to comment on applications which in our view do not comply.

Such comments can range from the relatively minor (for example, objecting to an inappropriate design for a new dormer window in a listed building) to the more challenging (for example considering proposals for large residential developments around the coast) to very substantial schemes, such as the redevelopment of the various large sites currently taking place in St Helier. We try to make our comments as objective as possible, based upon our understanding of the law and the experience of our Panel members.