Planners haven't addressed all the Admiral Park problems
IT WAS obviously a foregone conclusion that both the Admiral Park and St Sampson's plans were going to be passed and any caution or question would be viewed with negativity. The media were told that no recording or filming of the proceedings were to be made and the many people there were silenced by another strand of red tape let into the fabric of democracy. I mean, of course, that people who had taken the trouble to write in with objections had been sent a letter containing the fact that they had to reiterate their desire to speak at the meeting. As no one, evidently, noted that little sentence we were condemned to listen without protest – we were gagged.
Doubtless the planners have done much work on the Admiral Park plan and some of the points have been noted and solutions found. There are three major obstacles still in place as well as several minor ones:
Le Bouet each day in the morning and the evening traffic is at a standstill as it joins Elizabeth Avenue. The planners have said that the crossroads, which has traffic lights, cannot be changed the roads cannot be widened, the problem of traffic congestion cannot be solved.
Part of a solution could be to make Le Bouet one way, exiting at the aforesaid junction of Elizabeth Avenue. This has been the subject of a petition signed by 400-odd parishioners living on that road. This could also solve a problem of the lack of parking in the area – a win-win solution. My husband, myself and other professional people living in the road worked on traffic flows, suggestions to make the road safer, presentations to the States etc. etc. We were promised a hearing, which we got – but what has happened? Nothing.
The new gateway site has been portrayed as a three-storey house of the same height as the ones in Roseville Estate. This will mean, even though there is a buffer zone, that the houses will tower over the lower houses on the same side of the road and also make the junction oppressive. Privacy will be a thing of the past for their neighbours. Neither will they be aesthetically pleasing or in keeping with the area. The site is shown with parking, which obviously will add to congestion on both Le Bouet and Elizabeth Avenue. Is there an answer? A suggestion would be to limit owners travel time to and from their homes to between the hours of 10am and 4pm and 6.30pm to 7am (I am not serious even this States couldnt get away with that).
The third problem is by no means the least serious it is the continued lack of sufficient parking. This is the fault of the previous States adherence to an agenda of reducing car travel. I am sad to say that this States is still not heeding the message the people of Guernsey tried to give them (one of many). Guernsey people like their cars, they want to use their cars and they want adequate parking at their homes to house their cars. The initial Island Development Plan and the new plan continue to want us to walk, cycle or use the bus. Does it require a revolution to make the States listen? Enough is Enough tried, letters to the Press tried, nothing seems to dislodge them from trying to mould Guernsey people into a shape that does not fit them.
The last States and now this one are trying by social engineering to change our way of life. It is up to us to tell them in no uncertain terms that we don't want to change.
Many times in the meeting we were told that this was only a 'draft plan', nothing was set in stone, many things had to be finalised before submitting another but this time 'finished and final' plan.
Will we be surprised by Guernsey-looking structures that fit in with the island? Or will we be treated to more of the same – as they have already gotten away with structures that are absolutely not in keeping with our island.
They are 'modern' but that doesn't mean that they suit or complement – the amount of glass and stainless steel may make some happy, but it spoils a townscape of which we should be proud.
Environmentally they are not even efficient as they will be hot in summer and have to have air conditioners, and the external light filters, which make window cleaning difficult, are not attractive.
Finally, the plans have been heralded as economic enablers. They will only enable if site owner Comprop is forced to employ local firms, local building firms employing local sub-contractors, local architects overseeing the sites and where possible local suppliers.
If this follows on from the original structures they will import overseas workers (cheaper) and then get local firms to complete the work as it is substandard or not finished.
We cannot alter what has been completed but we don't have to emulate it.
ROSIE HENDERSON,
Ma Carriere,
Le Petit Bouet,
St Peter Port, GY1 2AN.
