Reclaim Belle Greve

Just as if we could go back in time by a similar amount and from there, have looked forward to the island as it is now, I think we would be shocked by the overall effect. Ten or 15 years is a short period and we actually should be thinking of how our island will be in one or two generations’ time.

I am absolutely confident that we will still be an economically successful jurisdiction and a very desirable place to live whether the ideas I am putting forward in this letter are adopted or not. I would like our States of Deliberation and our civil servants – the politicians and the planners – to be envisaging the Guernsey of 2050 or 2080. Will the pressures of this competitive world be basically any different? I doubt it – and therefore we need to plan accordingly.

As in 1960 there will be a housing shortage and there will still be a construction industry requiring orders. What green fields will they have built on and be proposing to build on? What low-rise buildings will they want to demolish and replace with high-rise flats? How will the historic and charming town of St Peter Port have been compromised? These are the sort of pressures that government is more than likely to face in order to maintain the economy at a level that is able to pay for the services required. This line of thought leads me to proposing that the reclamation of Belle Greve Bay should again be considered to prevent this scenario of over-development of the rest of Guernsey.

I would say to the many who will react very strongly against it, that they should ask themselves to compare this with the further despoliation of the rest of the island that will be the alternative. They should consider it therefore as the lesser of two evils. Those in favour of it should think of it as a chance to create a really attractive addition to the island that will be quite in sympathy with the existing character of St Peter Port and St Sampson’s. Furthermore, now is the ideal time to proceed as the cost of enclosure can be greatly reduced or even eliminated by combining the reclamation with the harbour developments that are very necessary.

I wish the recent STSB harbour proposals had considered this possibility. If the two new harbours and a separate superyacht marina were designed, any extra length of breakwater required would be minimal and more than compensated for by making land available for housing, parking improvements, traffic management and a myriad of other possibilities. The sale of the reclaimed land would provide long-term compensation for much of the capital cost.

A lagoon could be incorporated to retain access to the St Peter Port gabbro rock and the filling of Havelet Bay would not be necessary. The northern port could be moved away from Longue Hougue South, thus preserving the original coastline. The overall design concept could be the subject of an international competition for leading architects with a brief to ensure we did not end up with something out of character that would conflict with the exceptionally attractive waterfront and view across the Little Russel to Herm and Sark.

It would again differentiate us from Jersey, where their waterfront development may be a commercial success but is not greatly admired aesthetically. Guernsey has been bold in the past, for example with the filling of Braye du Valle, the 1822 Market and the construction of Newtown opposite Elizabeth College in the 19th century. Now is the time for a similar 21st century initiative. We cannot stop the world evolving. Progress, whether good or bad, is inevitable, so far better that we manage and lead it with far-sighted thinking.

GEOFF DOREY,

Les Queux,

Ruette des Effards,

Castel,

GY5 7DQ