Kings decision highlights 'inconsiderate' planning
THE Guernsey Press kindly published a letter that I wrote (1 February) highlighting my concerns for the lack of consideration shown by both planners and developers for the welfare of residents living in the two main centres for development in the island, namely St Peter Port and St Sampson's.
In the 10 February Press we have yet another example of the blatant disregard for the safety of those living directly in the vicinity of a major development, namely the Kings tennis court site, which will now have 13 new apartments as well as some 20-odd apartment car parking spaces. There will be a new access road for both the Kings Club and the apartments sited at the narrowest part of Les Croutes on what many would say is one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the island.
Incredibly, two of the three Environment members that formed the planning panel are quoted in yesterday's Press saying that the 'Les Croutes was a dangerous road and something should be done'.
Frankly, in all common sense the first thing that should have been done was to turn down or delay the application until such time as a feasible plan was put in place to make the road safe. They could have made the road one-way perhaps, or at least put in speed bumps and a zebra crossing.
We cannot allow these crazy planning decisions to be made. If it is the criteria of the planners that allows these types of inconsiderate, and now openly admitted 'dangerous' decisions to be made, then the planning criteria needs to be changed to take first and foremost the welfare of local residents into consideration.
According to comments made in the Press by a director of the developers, the re-siting of the access road preserves a protected sweet chestnut tree. In the cold light of reason, can a tree weigh against the safety of those having to use this dangerous road? Where are our priorities, have we lost all sense of proportion in the face of commercial advancement?
What will it take to stop these lunatic-type of applications from being passed? My great fear is that it will take the death or serious injury of a child before we wake up and stop these types of schemes being passed in these dangerous locations. I just hope and pray that my fears and the fears of many do not end up with bunches of flowers at the roadside.
In this actual case, should there be a serious accident or worse, the blame will fall in a large part on both the developers individually and the Environment Department. Both cannot in any circumstances say that they have not been warned time and time again about this development. Now all we, the public, can do is keep our fingers crossed that what many fear is inevitable never happens. Hardly a scientific modern solution to the problem, but it seems it's the best that both developers and the Environment Department can come up with.
MICHAEL HENDERSON,
Ma Carriere,
Le Bouet,
St Peter Port,
GY1 2AN.
Editor's footnote: A spokesman for the Environment Department responds: 'Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the comments of your correspondent regarding the Environment board's recent decision to approve a planning application to erect 13 new apartments and relocate the existing access road at Kings Club in King's Road, St Peter Port.
In considering this application, the Environment board was very aware of the highway safety and traffic management issues that exist in this part of St Peter Port.
However, having carefully considered all of the information and evidence presented at the open planning meeting, including the views of representors and of its consultees, the board concluded that the development proposed in this case would not have any significant impact on highway safety or traffic management.
