Urban expansion proposal is a once-in-a-generation chance

DIGESTING recent comments, opinions, observations, and reading between lines, I cannot be the only one concerned Guernsey may be drifting toward decline. While some ideas have been presented, I fear none are consistent with reality and lack the degree of scale-effectiveness required to fix the demographic weakness.

Arguments:

1/ Government is concerned about a shortfall of money and a large section of the local population do not want to pay (many cannot afford) any further increased State demands on their pockets, whether through higher taxes (all forms and guises) utility cost rises, further excess burden on the motorists, or other new costly initiatives. Many would agree the local limit of ‘State grab’ has been reached across the board some time ago.

2/ Many businesses require more staff. However, to recap on recent news stories, the population is not growing sufficiently and further projected to significantly shrink due to our increasingly ageing population, combined with the double whammy of a lower birth rate. It has been proposed certain people work longer before retiring, and for others who are currently not economically active (likely through personal circumstance and choice) to join the workforce. However, such solutions offer limited success, could work on a small scale, but nevertheless result only in being mere ‘sticking plasters’ of ideas, that delay the unlocking of the urgent robust solutions required. Further, such less-effective tinkering could potentially exacerbate the birth rate issue, at a time other countries are finding ways to incentivise growth in birth rates; something perhaps we need to also encourage.

3/ Guernsey does not currently have sufficient population mass to support external transportation links, in a way that does not cost the taxpayer through subsidies. Neither does the current situation result in adequate ongoing re-investment, to promote frequent positive experiences for inbound and outbound, air and sea travellers. This must change.

4/ While islanders have, within relatively short distance, access to a variety of public spaces, amenities and facilities, many are outdated, unattractive/poorly designed, unhygienic/unclean in some cases, not well maintained, and inaccessible for some. Guernsey can and should be doing much better for its population and the tourist industry, by seeking ways to sensitively modernise and improve our island into a more experientially-attractive place to live, work and holiday.

5/ While slowly improved in recent years, our shopping and entertainment venues lack sufficient quality, diversity and scale to attract and facilitate fullest positive experiences for local inhabitants and visitors, sufficient to satisfy and ‘tick that motivational box’. We must deliver for the local population a fuller urban experience, thousands of places around the globe have provided for many years. A better way of life, ensuring local people choose to continue living here, and visitors are attracted to return.

Remedy:

While unacceptable for some, selective population growth to support current and future demands of businesses, and manage the demographic in a way that also acceptably supports sustainable public finances (among other things) is the only workable solution. This requires a considered management plan, followed by action without delay. I propose the only viable policy is for significant population growth, requiring extensive new housing, located within and around the two main centres. Of course, we know this is currently happening to an extent. Leale's Yard and other nearby St Sampson’s/Vale sites, including those currently in planning process at Le Murier, and finally some clear thinking with higher-rise construction more recently proposed for La Charrotterie, demonstrates some focus on this already and previously. However, I propose a considerable urban increase, in conjunction with an embargo on all new additional housing in local centres and all other areas outside of the centres, where such sites do not relate well with the boundary previously referred to as the Urban Area Plan (predating the current IDP). Such a clear directive will serve to contain and make the most of urban developments, within a defined and sustainable space, preventing island-wide, unsustainable and damaging sprawl of housing developments; thereby protecting rural and promoting urban. I further advocate transfer of selected existing western housing population, (eg. Les Genats and others) into the urban and sub-urban realm, in order to achieve a rural population reduction. Sites such as Les Genats and others could be sold off for low density private redevelopments (agreed in advance of purchase) with large gardens and landscaped open communal areas and trees, with further additional areas supporting biodiversity; all commensurate with these rural locations, as well as contributing to offsetting any losses within the urban and suburban spaces. The concept will also ensure a large reduction in State maintenance and upgrade costs, at same time as facilitating construction of essential newbuild public/social and private housing stock.

Further reasoning:

a) We have the highest realistic chance of engineering provision of infrastructure for alternative transportation choices, such as cycling and walking between schools, home and workplaces, for the lowest mileage, the least time and cost, and the lowest amount of material use, within urban and sub-urban spaces.

b) Utility services can be installed and future upgraded for more people, within the least amount of road miles, the least time and cost, and the lowest amount of material use.

c) Shortest possible distance and costs for new foul drains to sewage treatment and outfall location

d) Least amount of construction material transportation mileage between building merchants and suppliers and building sites, realising an emissions reduction in the region of 70% during process, compared to rural developments.

e) A complete focus on ‘urban’, combined with removal (or suspension) of IDP policy GP11, will ensure all available developer resources are targeted, and most importantly motivated, to build houses only in the right places, and soonest. Building any and many houses is in my view a priority, more so than a focus on providing even more social housing, exacerbating an increasingly evolving two-tier system. We need to find ways to help others lift themselves up, with better paid jobs, and a reduction in resigned attitude and drifting need for increasing social housing.

f) A very regular public bus transportation, servicing the highest amount of people, can be made to work most efficiently within the smaller ‘urban area’ than could ever reasonably be provided island wide; that is without significant waste of money and unnecessary cost to the environment.

g) It is desirable to reduce rural population, and to grow urban first, in order to protect the threatened peace and tranquillity of our rural area to the south and west. Developments in rural areas, regardless of targeted policy initiatives, encourage people to own and therefore use cars, promoting increased ‘buzz’ as opposed to a peaceful countryside. Once lost, it will be gone forever. We can have both, with a considered plan.

h) New investment in key infrastructure, such as new and/or improved urban roads and east coast defence (among other things) are justified when serving and protecting urban assets with an increased population.

i) A much larger capacity urban environment will encourage new business start-ups, and relocation of others, motivating the regeneration, expansion and improvement of the urban realm, servicing a larger population.

j) The north and east of the island provides the greatest opportunity we have of providing for less physically-able members of the population, including but not limited to accommodating our ageing population to live life as independently as possible, more healthily, and for longer. Largely, this conclusion is drawn from the fact land in this part of Guernsey is relatively flat, but also significant new housing with integrated multi-mode/ability transport infrastructure, combined with equally significant private investment in new businesses, including retail, entertainment, and services, will all necessarily require full design considerations with regard to ‘access for all’, that cannot readily be accommodated in many existing buildings, neither to such a full extent provide requisite independence continuity between spaces and places.

k) Building a significant number of new dwellings could provide equally significant State income on initial sales, to reinvest in social housing and an ongoing increase in annual TRP collection.

l) Increased population will introduce improved efficiency scales, with growth for all utility services

m) Significant proposals that would keep the island’s construction industry strong for the next two decades and beyond.

n) A larger population with more jobs, in a variety of roles, in almost every sector.

o) A more vibrant urban experience, with two towns, offering variety and choice in conjunction with preservation of our rural area would significantly boost the island as a destination for tourism

p) A boost to existing local business, services and publications across the board.

Consider current key options – it appears there are two roads:

Route 1/ Tax existing population more. This will inevitably lead to less happy people, cripple others, and lead to an increasing exodus of working age people, seeking a better life elsewhere. Thereby exacerbating the problem.

Route 2/ Maintain, or reduce (eventually) current tax burden. This will provide both hope and relief to islanders and ultimately lead to an increasingly happier, more settled population. The only apparent downside is fear of increased population, the level I suggest be targeted to fall somewhere in the region of 70,000 by year 2030, with a cap of say 72,000 beyond that. In recent years lessons must have been learned, when it comes to population demographics, business and the economy, taxation and public spending, that require careful management – always. This proposal for growth incorporated into the Guernsey economic management model, is with emphasis on the potential to apply more foresight and control in advance for future years, than previously. For now, Guernsey can and must seek sufficient population growth to counter the looming demographic fault. I see this as an opportunity to improve and provide for future Guernsey, by investing in ‘urban first’ on a scale and speed not experienced before, as a way of building ourselves out of the developing sink-hole.

Counter arguments:

To those who might say build more in the rural areas, spread housing across the island, share the load. I would say this:

This will damage the island, leave us with no quiet spaces, it will further ‘busify’ everywhere, and ruin the islands natural environment, killing our ‘quiet side’ – irreparably.

To those who might say the Guernsey coastline will be ruined if we build anymore new developments along and around the east coast. I would say this:

Relatively substantial building has already taken place in this area over the last 30 years, without spoiling the seaboard coastal view. One obvious example, consider the Hauteville development, Domaine de Beauport. This prominent high-town site has been positively exploited to provide new housing that has carefully maximised site use, adding stature to the built environment, but not excessively or beyond what is reasonable. Other projects criticised originally such as Glategny Esplanade and Admiral Park, fell flat as the developments progressed to completion. These additions have proved to enhance and modernise the seafront, without spoiling it, while providing essential residential units and space for business, in the right places.

I am confident our Planning Department have the right motive, skills and foresight to ensure developments do not spoil the Guernsey seaboard coastal view. I further argue, people the world over expect to see buildings on the harbour/Town and city approaches. We have tremendous scope to provide further buildings along and within the east coast area, combining and integrating these with a fully designed, multitasking space, sensitively recreating an improved developed scene, with a memorable identity, consistent with the uniquely Guernsey landscape.

Of course, it will be changed from what it currently appears, but also an opportunity to introduce thoroughly considered improvements, not only in the positive visually, but importantly positive in substance.

To those who might argue against infilling Belle Greve Bay. I would say this:

Some reclamation and use of space within Belle Greve Bay is, in any case, necessary to protect the east coast and important inter-town/harbours public highway; already currently vulnerable to disruption during some high tides. Current road and junctions lack requisite capacity and diversity to support 21st-century travel, with some provisions clearly hazardous (very in some areas) and therefore a deterrent to use as a viable shared pedestrian and cycle way (otherwise needing to accommodate increased traffic) to have any meaningful value. I further consider a dedicated bus lane to be desirable on our main inter-town/inter-harbour highway. Part reclamation of Belle Greve would therefore bring significant opportunity to improve this key transportation link for all users, in addition to creation of new areas for seating, gathering and viewing, with significant landscape enhancements across the entire sea front. Further, any partial reclamation of Belle Greve, would bring increased investment and facilities into the ‘blue economy’, therefore I mostly propose uses that are in-keeping with the location. This proposal does not therefore envision the complete infilling and building upon Belle Greve as previous, less-sensitive schemes proposed.

To those who might argue increased population could mean more civil servants are required, I would say this:

Possibly yes, but not in all departments, and only as a small proportion of the increase in population. With regard to health, we obviously need to ensure we take in healthy, younger-aged people, so as not to instantly (or soon after) burden health services – it would be absolute folly to consider anything else. It could also be argued the civil-servant/population ratio should prove more efficient with a larger population.

Conclusion:

Guernsey stands at the threshold of a big decision. Either allow things to decline to unsustainable levels, then sink beneath the waves in an ocean of ‘lack’, or take a different route and open-up the potential for positive growth, by facilitating transformation of our east coast/urban environment into a higher capacity, modern workable design, a truly integrated approach that works for everyone today and tomorrow. We need to look forward and move forward, accommodating and facilitating growth in the right place, and in the right way.

There has been plenty of debate, mostly ‘progressed’ in circles, with some ideas suggested ranging from VAT-styled taxes, return of road taxes or similar, even more fuel duty, speed cameras to bring in more dough…etc. All ideas threatening to squeeze increasing amounts of ‘blood’ out of an increasingly stone-like population. The reality is many people simply do not have any more to give in taxes. Instead of addressing the demographic as a money issue, why not address it as it is? A demographic issue. Seek the balance in people numbers, accept it, and facilitate it. With the right mechanisms in place, and encouragement where needed, the private sector will complete most (80%) of the work and at no cost to the taxpayer, while delivering the improvements Guernsey desperately needs to support its citizens and businesses, as well as attract new and repeat tourism. We need to do what works, move away from historic mix of ‘fudge and compromise’ and current ‘paralysis-analysis’. I propose we facilitate and unleash private investment into the urban area to help transform it into a sustainable model that works for the economy, works across a range of policy objectives, and works for the people of Guernsey.

I finally conclude. This urban expansion proposal, is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, to secure ‘future Guernsey’, not only to support financial sustainability objectives, but to open up considerable enhancement opportunities that can only reveal themselves through the design process, not as something to be feared, but something to get excited about. Guernsey can easily cope with increased population, but careful planning and management of such increase is key. The realisation of this project could be the making of our island home, as we walk forward with change, growing with the cards dealt, and in ways suitable for the times we now live.

Peter Harrison is Guernsey-born, raised and educated. His career currently spans 43 years, serving within a mix of engineering and architectural design consultancies. He has had experience on a broad range of project types, with values ranging from £5,000 up to around £100m. He is currently director of drawings4ULimited ARCHITECTURE+, a Guernsey registered company, for the most part providing architectural services for homeowners and developers.