Land shouldn't be gifted to developer
Re: Old brewery site and Comprop (C.I.) Limited. Firstly may I point out that I write as a private person, a tax and ratepayer. I have recently had sight of a letters from a firm of advocates and also an architect concerning the above site. I have done some research, got copies of deeds together with the plans that accompany them, seen and bought aerial pictures, and I believe that I have an informed opinion of the proposed landscape improvements. One of the purposes of the douzaine is to stand as a body of people between government and the general public to protect the interests of the people. The States, by ignoring their democratic vote, show disrespect to both entities. I have been informed that Planning have approved the plans and that a lease is in preparation. It has been widely reported that the douzaine was asked firstly, whether they felt that planning permission should be granted for an extension to the land purchased. The douzaine voted against planning permission on the grounds that firstly, it was their sworn duty to protect the interest of ratepayers and residents of St Peter Port and by extension, protect areas of common ownership. Secondly, that it formed a precedent to sell public land without specific permission and an appropriate open planning meeting.
The reason for permission being requested in the first instance was because the land in question was public highway and was subject to the requirements of the 1840 Ordinance relating to roads and lanes. In brief it was indicated that since the land was now to be leased, the alterations were not deemed to be permanent and, therefore, no permission was required. While understanding the premise I feel that it is entirely illogical. The facts are that an area of publicly-owned road is in effect being given away to a commercial entity; the road surface is to be removed to allow for flower beds to be created. The base purpose of extension into public thoroughfare is to allow for a loading/unloading bay as well as a tarmac path. In my view, in order for an area to be temporarily 'enhanced' would require a series of planters resting on undisturbed tarmac, rather than, as is shown in the artistic rendition, trees and shrubs planted in soil. The planting will be permanent – the interests of rate-payers living in St Peter Port are not being served or respected.
The area will obviously enhance the complex and as such has a value to that entity. Granting a lease does not guarantee adequate planting or maintenance. Arguably the new landscaped area would enhance the public space, however, the South Plantation is currently looking uncared for and cannot be enhanced in the near future. States Works do an incredible job, but with responsibility for the whole island of Guernsey and with budget cuts etc. they cannot do everything.
The area of land in question is a portion of road leading from the bottom of Le Val des Terres into the South Esplanade. It also juts out into Les Echelons, narrowing the entrance to that road and removing valuable parking spaces. The square meterage is approximately 180 – that is equivalent of the footprint of a medium-sized house.
This is no small parcel of road and should not be donated to a commercial entity without serious consideration and appropriate rental.
We are told that the States are wanting income streams, however, given a willing lessor of valuable land we are then told that they will grant a lease at a peppercorn rent. This is of course undoubtedly bad land management at the very least.
I point no fingers, and do not criticise architects, planning civil servants or anyone else, however, believe that the implications laid out above have not been given due consideration. I have been afforded a courteous hearing and been helped by all the people to whom I have spoken. However, it is indisputable that the douzaine has been manipulated, misinformed and shown disrespect, and as voluntary but elected members of society this is not something that should be tolerated. I would ask that the entire situation be re-appraised, attention paid to the democratic vote of the douzaine on behalf of the residents of St Peter Port.
One last point is that there have been complaints concerning the same site and its encroachment on the top level in The Strand. The Strand is already a difficult and narrow road and the encroachment has the effect of further narrowing. Whether this was discussed with Planning is unknown. It also should be looked into and the encroachment reversed.
ROSIE HENDERSON,
Ma Carriere,
Le Petit Bouet,
St Peter Port,
GY1 2AN.
