Proposals for harbour suggest a 'make do and mend' attitude

The board was unanimous in agreeing that St Peter Port Harbour was the jewel in the crown of St Peter Port and needed to be developed to primarily serve the visitor economy, which would entail the relocation of all the commercial activity elsewhere. We began to consider building a new commercial harbour and at the time we favoured an area under the Vale Castle known as Black Rock.

I have to ask myself what has happened since then? Being brief and not wishing to lose my readers’ attention, I think I am safe in saying that we have had a succession of sub-committees with title similar to the Eastern Seaboard Development Committee, although nothing has been actually done yet.

The recent continuation of making heavy weather of doing nothing, is that in 2021 the States Trading Supervisory Board produced a Billet d’Etat with an analysis of future harbour requirements which was rejected by the Assembly.

Following up from this in June 2023, P&R submitted a Billet entitled ‘East Coast Development’ setting up a private/public development agency, with a budget of £1m. Insofar as St Peter Port harbour is concerned this ‘workstream’ also involves P&R, the DPA and the STSB. It will report to the next Assembly.

The brief for this development agency appalls me. In general, I almost lost the will to live having to read the Billet as it went into endless detail in specifying the parameters to be followed, which architects and engineers and other professionals, in any case comply with, as a matter of good practice.

In particular the agency is charged with ‘Investigating options for the provisions of new marina facilities at St Peter Port Harbour'.

What they should be charged with, is what the board starting to plan all those years ago. That is the construction of a new commercial port, thus freeing the existing harbour to be fully enclosed, from the White Rock to the end of the Castle Emplacement, with access by locks.

Marine leisure income, with a knock-on effect on the island’s GDP, would be increased by multiples of the existing level and a permanent high tide would make the jewel in the crown sparkle even more.

So, 25 years – a quarter of a century – have passed after a States committee identified the need for a new harbour. That need is even more urgent now but unrecognised by the politicians and probably civil servants of today.

The current proposals show a make do and mend attitude unbefitting the ambitious and vibrant community which are and which we want to be in the future.

Where is the vision and the leadership?

GEOFF DOREY