Shocked at Planning ruling - memorial garden enhances previously neglected plot
I WRITE in support of Mrs Monachan who featured in your front page article on Saturday 7 May. ('Widow is denied memorial garden') Anyone who has walked past this area, and seen all the hard work she has been doing over the last six years, to fulfil her husband's dying wish to create a rose garden, could not question that it has only enhanced the scenery, and made a lovely place for many people, both locals and visitors to sit and enjoy. It is deemed to be agricultural land, but she has no buildings, no structure, she does not park cars or store equipment – she has only beautiful flowers and a fence to protect them from rabbits, so why can this not be allowed to stay?
It is also one small area, surrounded by large houses so it could never be used in a real agricultural manner, so if the States insist on her ripping up and destroying everything, then at best it will go from a beautiful place to a scruffy, overgrown area that does nothing to enhance this popular area.
When I read your article I wondered why anyone one would have complained to the States Planning Service, as there are other properties nearby which are far more of an eyesore, and how Planning can waste time and resources on such a stupid matter when they allow big monstrosities to be built.
But the States have really scraped the bottom of the barrel when you realise that all her hard work, time and effort has been as a tribute to her late husband.
Surely they could show some sympathy to this lady.
I know that rules are rules, but if they had been to see how nice it is, and had spoken to most people who walk past the area, then surely they could have shown some compassion rather than writing an official letter, demanding a widow tear down and destroy the only thing she has left to remember her husband by.
Shame on you States of Guernsey!
Name and address withheld.
