Higher risk, but more potential

If successful, a requete led by Deputy Neil Inder would make the harbour project the preferred option over further reclamation at the north of Belle Greve.

So far, although giving the idea a sympathetic ear, those behind the original reclamation plan have stuck rigidly to their position that theirs is the most suitable inert waste site and simply pushed the concept on to others investigating the seafront enhancement, where it has got stuck.

While there are obvious benefits to creating further land and berths at the harbour – plans have been kicking about for at least five years – there is no identified use for the Longue Hougue extension.

As this is a States that was willing to spend money on an environmental impact assessment for two quarry sites that were never going to be the solution, there is clearly some concern within the chamber about the path being pursued by the States’ Trading Supervisory Board and a desire to have a choice.

No serious work has been done on the prospect of reclamation east of the QE2 marina, it was ruled out very early on based on a narrow definition of what an inert waste site should be.

There is no doubt that the harbour project would be much more disruptive and comes with higher risks in terms of the phased management – but it also comes with much greater benefits.

The frustration is that the States is now fighting against an ever tighter deadline as the current site nears capacity.

Those backing the requete, and tellingly, that includes three members of Policy & Resources, believe the overall costs of the harbour scheme would be comparable with Longue Hougue – the question really is one of feasibility. Can it actually be done and quickly enough?

Members will only ever know if they back the call for the project to be investigated and reported on at the same time as the current preferred option.