Commons Council's stance is for the benefit of everyone on island
THE reason why the Vale Commons Council made its presentation to members of the States of Deliberation earlier this week was to open up its vision for the future of the Vale Commons to our deputies, the habitants of the Clos du Valle and all islanders. As the biggest stumbling block involves the future funding of the Commons, in particular the future playing of golf, the presentation (which can be seen on the website www.valecommons.org) also informs the 1,250 or so members of the two private golf clubs – the Royal Guernsey and L'Ancresse – of what has been proposed in the most recent of three separate proposals which the Vale Commons Council has put to their committees.
I do urge everyone concerned to take a look at the presentation, as it is very much wider than the issue of playing golf which, although important, is by no means the major issue for the future of the Commons under the care of the Council, whose voluntary members work tirelessly for the wellbeing of the whole of the Commons for the benefit of all islanders.
Understandably, media interest has tended to focus on the present inability of the Council and the two golf clubs to reach an agreement, despite the best efforts of those Vale deputies who have striven to achieve a meeting of the minds, or bang heads together, whichever way you view it.
As chairman of the Vale Commons Working Party, and together with the Environmental Advisory Group, my team has assisted the Council on a purely voluntary basis, in this case with the negotiations for the future playing of golf beyond 31 December 2016, when the present 70-year agreement, at a rent of £100 per year plus a £20 per year payment to the land owners, comes to an end.
I, as chairman, am therefore grateful to you for an opportunity to briefly clarify the position of the Council.
The Council is keen that golf is continued to be played on the Commons beyond 2016.
The Council believes this will best be achieved if the course continues to be run by the two golf clubs, through their management company.
The Council has no wish to interfere in the management of the course and would expect both the golf clubs and the Council to co-operate fully with each other under the terms of a 25-year agreement for the playing of golf and a separate environmental agreement for the management of the course, which could be agreed between the parties and the Environment Department.
The Working Party recognises that there needs to be a new era of co-operation between all concerned, if we are to seize this one opportunity to put the future of the Commons on a sound footing and break with the decades of gross under-funding.
Turning to the financial provisions, the position of the Council is as follows:
It is calculated that a sum of £160,000 per year would be sufficient to care for and improve the whole of the Commons which, as many will know, is the single largest area of open land in Guernsey, running from the Vale Church to Beaucette. It is listed as a site of scientific importance and really deserves the status of our national park.
For the reason that the golf course occupies one half of the Commons, the Council seeks to generate £80,000 per year from that area of land.
The remaining £80,000 will need to come from the annual grant from the States, awarded from 2001 at £30,000 per year, but never increased by inflation as was intended. That grant, suitably inflated, should be £45,000. The rest of the money will need to come from the other organised users of the Commons, plus other sources, and from a supporters association. Shared sensibly, these contributions need not be great and, should income exceed £160,000, the States grant could be reduced accordingly.
As part of this proposal, the golf clubs have been asked to agree to two things:
1. That each member of the golf clubs pays £2 per round. With current play at 38,000 of the 55,000 available rounds, that generates most of what is required.
2. That the golf clubs 'open up' an initial 2,000 rounds of golf a year (some 12% of the unused capacity of the course) so that suitably qualified non-members can play, whether they be local or visitors, the rate for such 'municipal playing' to be set at about £30 per round from 2017 and to be split equally between the golf clubs and the Council, but with 12.5% being set aside for promotion.
(All sums quoted are subject to inflation at RPI.)
This proposal is designed to do three things:
1. To be risk-free to the golf clubs; in other words, no play – no pay.
2. To 'open up' the course to no more than a limited extent for the benefit of other than club members.
3. To exploit, to a limited extent, the very substantial commercial potential of the golf course to the benefit of all.
In the case of the golf clubs, the opportunities to derive additional income from play by non-members are diverse, the intended effect being to bring the net contribution from the members of the golf clubs down to around the £50,000 which they have already said they are willing to pay.
In short, the proposal is designed to be win-win, with the golf clubs having a year in which to organise a booking system and perhaps put down a modest but generous welcome mat.
There are two other parties who have a role to play if the Council's proposals are to bear fruit.
A.) The first are the land owners, who assert their right to title over 10 parcels of land which form about 40% of the present course. They now seek £1,000 per parcel of land (£10,000 per year in all) to allow the playing of golf over their land.
Although the Council does not represent them as land owners (some are Habitants), it believes their claim is fair and reasonable.
With the golf clubs' joint income estimated at something over £1.2m. per year, the Council would hope that payment to the land owners would not become a stumbling block whereby any agreement between the golf clubs and the Council cannot be implemented because the golf clubs refuse to pay the land owners to play over their land, something which they have done for the last 70 years.
B.) The other party is the States. Their involvement arose in 1947 as a result of a resolution to fund and create a municipal golf course at L'Ancresse. Funded it was, municipal it has never been.
The States no longer has any role to play in maintaining the course, but it does have a legitimate interest in promoting tournaments, facilitating horse-racing and the maintenance of the course to the required standard.
In order to do this, the States needs to be reassured that the agreement between the golf clubs, on behalf of its 1,250 or so private members, and the Council makes adequate provision for this in the various agreements. The annual grant to the Council towards maintaining the rest of the Commons should provide sufficient leverage in this respect.
With fewer members of the States and fewer departments, come April 2016, the Council contends that members of the Assembly and their officers will have more than enough to do without being interposed between the golf clubs and the Council, as the golf clubs would have them be.
In conclusion, therefore, the golf clubs are a powerful force who have perhaps painted the voluntary members of the Council and those assisting them as uncooperative and intransigent. That, as I hope this letter and the presentation itself have shown, is certainly not the case.
Perhaps now is the time for the members of the two golf clubs to recognise that the 70 years of all but exclusive use of the Commons will come to an end shortly and that by, together with other organised users, making a modest contribution and sharing a small proportion of the capacity of a course which is, after all, not in their private ownership, is the way forward for the benefit of everyone in Guernsey.
JURAT MICHAEL TANGUY MBE,
Chairman,
Vale Commons Working Party.