FROM time to time I read letters in this newspaper nostalgically recalling the days before the finance industry imposed its stranglehold on an albeit willing population, which had been swayed by the (absolutely correct) forecasts of the wealth and benefits that would accrue by repealing the Code of 1771.
That piece of legislation decreed that the maximum interest which could be charged or paid was five per cent, and the decision of that lot in the then Big House heralded the arrival of what were known as merchant banks. It also heralded a bit of a bonanza for some of our elected representatives, with invitations swiftly dropping on their doormats suggesting that they might like to become finance house directors, for suitable remuneration, of course. However, in those days politicians didn’t pull down 900 notes a week for doing precisely as much (or as little) work as they wanted, which is the case today.
Until those days, the dominant industries were tourism and agriculture, and when it came to deliberations in the Big House, they tended to get the lion’s share of whatever happened to be going, along with help when they needed it. Hence the now seemingly extraordinary level of protection for agriculture and horticulture given by Protocol 3 of the Treaty of Rome, which governed Britain’s entry into the Common Market and these islands’ relationship with that entity. I say extraordinary only in the light of the decision to follow Britain in allowing the free movement of labour from Common Market countries, while at the same time denying the right to live and work in Europe to Jersey-born men and women who did not have at least one British grandparent.
All very interesting, but, as Herself would say, what’s all that got to do with the price of fish? Well, in the eyes of many, the wheel is starting to turn, not anywhere near full circle yet, but there is a perceptible shift away from the notion that the finance industry is the be all and end all of everything and that both tourism and agriculture (the latter thanks in no small measure to the Keep Jersey Farming campaign) must have an increasingly important part to play in the Island’s future wellbeing.
In short, Jersey must decide whether it wants to perpetuate the image Private Eye readers have of a ‘no questions asked’ bolt hole for individuals and entities running decidedly dodgy activities – and true or not, that is the perception – or whether it should revert to being the place famed for its agricultural and dairy products and the warm welcome it has always offered visitors to its shores who want to enjoy the sort of value-for-money holiday that makes them want to come back year after year.
It’s many years since I drove anywhere near Retreat Farm, which borders St Lawrence and St Mary, but I do know that it doesn’t take long for greenhouse sites to become not only derelict, but veritable eyesores.
Now we have an entrepreneur who wants to avoid that situation and extend what is an already popular amenity in Tamba Park – which is popular with both tourists and local people, which is surely an objective of any such enterprise – by building a holiday village on the adjacent disused greenhouse site.
There will, of course, be those who will tell Jonathan Ruff that the site should be ‘returned’ to an agricultural
or horticultural use when it seems clear to me – and some of the retired farmers and growers I meet – that not only would the restoration cost be prohibitive, but there’s precious little demand for such sites.
After all, I’ve lost count of the number of farms I’ve seen where consent’s been given for fairly large sheds to be built – industrial units would be a better description – only for pretty far-reaching change of use consents to be obtained and, in some cases, demolition and several houses being constructed.
Mr Ruff’s idea at least contributes to what’s been described as a positive effect on the visitor economy, although I’d probably go further and say it won’t do any harm to the Island’s overall economy either, and that needs all the help it can get and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
And finally… The parish, through its assembly, the congregation, the planners and the Anglican Church, have all approved plans relating to St Lawrence Church, but Save Jersey’s Heritage hasn’t and wants to be the tail that wags the dog – again.
