Ports master plan unveiled

NORTH Beach could be lost as a public car park under a dramatic vision to develop the ports released today.

One of the possibilities for the development of the ports which forms part of the Public Services Department's master plan.
One of the possibilities for the development of the ports which forms part of the Public Services Department's master plan.

NORTH Beach could be lost as a public car park under a dramatic vision to develop the ports released today.

Public Services has published its ports master plan, which also includes a key priority of developing a deep water berth running south from Longue Hougue for cargo and fuel that would cost at least £71m. and up to £143m.

Public Services said that a key requirement at St Peter Port was additional space for commercial freight operations, this would also include a relocated passenger terminal.

‘The North Beach Car Park represents a key component of any modernisation and expansion of the commercial port,’ the master plan states.

‘The area will be required, in part or in full, to allow reconfiguration to meet security requirements and to allow enhanced cargo handling and distribution. However, the existing function as a free public car park is likely to result in strong resistance to change of use.’

The plan sets out a range of future development priorities for St Peter Port and St Sampson’s Harbour over the next 25 years that also include better provision for commercial fishermen.

Major projects outlined in the plan will need States approval.

Full details in tomorrow’s Guernsey Press.

Comments for: "Ports master plan unveiled"


£143m hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

This will be the States saving us money then?

Remove North Beach car park?? ‘The area will be required, in part or in full, to allow reconfiguration to meet security requirements and to allow enhanced cargo handling and distribution.'

Have Public Services actually paid any attention to what's been happening with the shipping of goods in and out of Guernsey recently? You know the empty warehouses, freight companies closing down etc.....



Im not 100% but pretty sure that the car park at north beach was ever intended to be a car park when they originally did the project, it was just to be used as such until it was needed as part of a port development , which it appears to be what this is, again not 100% maybe some one else might know.


Ok I get it, another UK expert has been on the island and found another way for our limited funds to be spent.

Just how can we afford to keep on financing major projects beats me.

So what really is so wrong with what we have now.

It seems to me that its a " nice to have " project, but will the island grind to a halt if nothing is done.

Finally it seems that all this will benefit, freight/oil companies/ commercial fishermen( getting less each year) and help their profits, at what cost to the island.

The figures given always end up far more in the end.

Island Wide Voting

Public Services Board is

Minister Paul Luxon South East

Deputies ..

Scott Ogier St Sampsons

Yvonne Burford West

Darren Duquemin Castel

Robert Jones St Peter Port South

Might be handy to know?


Might be handy..................

But isn't. What's the point in lobbying those that have put this £arcical plan forwards?

Island Wide Voting

Bugger lobbying them!

Kick them out in 2016 ( if we're still limited to choosing half a dozen deputies in mini districts)

Neil Forman


Do you remember this?


Sparty could not open it on another post, click the news tab and then the election 2012 tab, then the questionnaire picture.

Question 1. Statements I support.

Island Wide Voting should be introduced.

Darren Duquemin & Scott Ogier, ( interesting to see how many agreed with this and have done nothing so far)

And the kicker!

Savings need to be made before any new initiatives are introduced:

Darren Duquemin ( I am surprised ), Paul Luxon, Scott Ogier & Rob Jones ( surprised again ).

Yvonne Burford wanted to balance the books????


An acquaintance has asked the question of the statistics dept. what savings and increases in charges have been made so far, no answer yet.

These people need to realise that FTP does not stand for F@ck The Taxpayer.

Agree with your second sentence.


I wouldn't blame the Board, other than for their naivety, this has the stamp of Harbourmaster Gill all over it. The Board have not been in office long enough to come up with this insanity. If we intended such a massive reorganisation why did we spend millions on the New Jetty, millions on the No. 4 (?) berth and now look to replace all the cranes? Save money ? This lot don't know what that means!

Yvonne Burford

Hi Neil,

Would you prefer that I had no desire to eliminate the deficit?

A few *general* points:

1. The FTP has less than two years to run. Therefore it would be unlikely that any major capital project from this report would be commissioned before the end of the FTP.

2. When new Boards are elected they essentially join a moving train where work streams are in progress, some relatively new, some approaching completion.

3. All Board decisions are by a majority vote. So as long as between three and five people are in agreement the item will be carried.

Neil Forman

Hi Yvonne

I would prefer all Deputies had the desire to eliminate the deficit instead of continually coming up with massive projects which we cannot afford.

The FTP may have less than two years to run but can you see the target being reached? The target for the end of November 2012 was savings of £18,500,000. Actual savings were £10,800,000. So it is just under £8,000,000 off target.

So in less than two years they have to find another £12,500,000 in savings. The easier savings have been made already so where are the next lot coming from?

If it is not met the taxpayer will have to foot the bill with increased taxes. Despite some of these 'savings' actually being increased charges for services.

We keep being told that this is a time of austerity, I have yet to see it.

For the record, could I ask which way you voted?

Island Wide Voting

Yvonne Burford says ....

1. The FTP has less than two years to run.

So the mindset appears to be roll on 2015 when we can really get cracking with spending other people's money.

Sounds very much like the Labour Party is alive and well in Guernsey


Neil Forman

I'm absolutely convinced all deputies have desire to eliminate the deficit, what makes you think they don't?

Who has told you this is a time for austerity? Do you believe this?

What makes you think we cannot afford massive infrastructure projects? Some would say we can't afford to stop that kind of economic generation.

What makes you think FTP will not achieve it's ultimate targets? All the details of where these savings will come from have been published.

I don't see anything wrong with increased charges where appropriate do you?

Yvonne Burford

Ray, that is your interpretation. I was against the new terminal building, I lobbied against the scale of the current Airport project and I campaigned against spending £93m on an incinerator. You only need to look at the situation Jersey have got themselves into with an oversized incinerator to see that was a narrow escape.

I am against overblown capital spending schemes. There is usually a much cheaper if less glitzy way of doing things, if they need doing at all. None of the major recommendations in the plan will be implemented without coming to the States, when each deputy will be able to vote for all to see.

From the foregoing I think you will see where I stand. I merely indicated the timescale on these things as Neil was suggesting the States would be spending on these ideas before the deficit was eliminated. (Although for completeness it must be pointed out that there is of course a difference between capital spending and recurring expenditure and it is the latter that the FTP is aimed at as I am sure Neil realises)

Island Wide Voting

OK Yvonne,thanks for that

I would vote for you if only it didn't entail moving home to do so


Not surprised at all really, it's just proof they are constantly looking for ways to waste taxpayers money.


Another proposed vast waste of tax payers cash. They are even proposing to replace the harbour terminal, why? It's luxurious compared to the one at Weymouth!!


Where can I see the plan? All this publicity and debate but no link to the actual report on the gov.gg website or here.


Have a gander people.


Island Wide Voting

Thanks Blue

Had a quick scan but couldn't find anything about moving the model yacht pond away from a busy port to somewhere more suitable in the 21st century


I doubt the consultants would have had time to consider such matters as the Pond in their report or were asked to edit it out possibly. A new MYP should be created at Cambridge park, near the new skate park. There is space and parking nearby. It would be much safer too for kids playing too. It would work.