New States must review bad decisions of the old
ANOTHER by-election is on the horizon and the 'new' States has actually managed to have a single day of debate and a huge amount of settling in. So now they must get to the real work of governing this Bailiwick. At the general election the biggest themes of discontent and discussion were education, transport links, the waste strategy and the island's reliance on the finance industry. We were promised on the doorstep that this States would 'hit the ground running', although factually, potential candidates were told that it would be October before the real work began. It is acknowledged that the last States left 'an unholy mess' and I would absolutely concur with that opinion. Surely then it would be common sense to revisit the messes and iron them out? That is before starting to debate new huge programmes such as the Island Development Plan.
The problems are deep and are real and should be re-debated as a matter of urgency. The civil service has to abide by the decisions laid out by the States until the States changes those decisions. At the moment many of the decisions were, in the eyes of many, wrong. But until those guidelines are changed the civil service cannot do anything but abide by those rules.
Admiral Park was, as originally planned, commercially non-viable. I argued that point and was told that according to the research done, I didn't know what I was talking about. The original plan was passed with several provisions that had to be applied to subsequent plans. The second plan was amended to make the site commercially viable and addressed all the points I had initially made, with the exclusion of the problems of additional traffic on overloaded roads. It has also been passed and my objections, although given in writing, have been overlooked.
The Admiral Park project is still unlikely to proceed other than the 'Gateway' project as, in fact there is still insufficient parking and the climate is not ready for another major commercial hub. However, the 'Gateway' site will heavily impact on the infrastructure of the area.
Presently the plans show the egress of the site to be on to Le Bouet – I have campaigned for two or three years to make Le Bouet one way and at the very least to install zebra crossings along the road as it is dangerous. The road at the moment, without any additional traffic, backs up to Rouge Rue and beyond and the problem is further exacerbated by the traffic lights. Added to this the new Gateway project will see buildings which are the same height as the Roseville development. Roseville sits on a slope and 'gets away' with its height by the fact of the hill behind. The new development will tower over neighbouring houses denying them light and privacy. In addition the houses nearby are not modern structures and similar styling to Roseville will not be in keeping with the area. This used to be a criteria which, because it is inconvenient for the States to think of aesthetics has recently been discarded.
We need this States to focus on the problems forced on us by the last. The foundations have to be firmly laid before they go on to stack more problems onto the quagmire of bad decisions. Their mandate was clear, many new faces vouch for the will of the people – if they ignore that will I believe the people have to take some sort of action. Before that happens the States must listen and, for a change, do what they said they would do.
ROSIE HENDERSON,
Ma Carriere, Le Petit Bouet,
St Peter Port, GY1 2AN.
