Has something changed that I have not noticed? The offshore islands disappeared? A large multi-storey building erected in front? Mr Haining no doubt purchased his home originally because of the amazing views and should he be successful with this application one can guarantee that any agent marketing the finished property will greatly expound on what will be its greatest asset – yes, amazing views. In principle I have no objection to responsible redevelopment, but surely such a case needs to be accurately and truthfully represented.
Who cannot agree (other than the planning applicant) that the views enjoyed from what was one of our island’s most iconic restaurants were truly amazing. How many of us over the years took visitors new to the island to the Auberge for coffee, lunch or supper to show off our beautiful archipelago? I did many many times. Any noise issue suggested could be controlled by the applicant as he owned the restaurant and could easily restrict any outdoor dining.
Its being suggested that presumably people living in Town don’t need a taxi to Octopus. Correct – but what about the hundreds of people living within walking distance of Auberge? As someone previously involved in the hospitality industry I find it very difficult to understand how the Auberge, which was so very well supported, couldn’t possibly be given the right rent/lease conditions to make money.
Please planners, recognise the value to the island, its residents and visitors of this site. In its marketing and advertising Guernsey constantly refers to being a ‘foodie paradise’ so how can we possibly allow one of its most popular and attractive restaurants to be lost forever?
This is a jewel in Guernsey’s crown. Please readers, make your views known to the planners.
PAUL G. HOLLOWAY