‘World-class facilities should not come at the expense of community accessibility’

Although I no longer live in Guernsey, I still regard it as my home island. My family remain there, and I visit regularly. It is therefore with a mixture of sadness and disbelief that I have followed developments at La Grande Mare Golf Club.

From 1 August, golfers will be able to play the redeveloped course for £200 per round, with tee times separated by 20 minutes to create a more exclusive experience. Membership details have yet to be announced. These are matters of public record. What troubles me is not the quality of the redevelopment, nor the obvious investment that has gone into the site, but rather the wider question of who this facility is really for.

Guernsey is blessed with a finite amount of land. When a significant tract of island land is acquired and transformed into a premium leisure facility, surely there must be a conversation about the social value returned to the local community.

Golf has never been the cheapest sport, but it has historically remained accessible to a broad cross-section of islanders. Clubs such as Royal Guernsey, L’Ancresse and St Pierre Park have provided routes into the game for local players, juniors and those developing an interest in the sport. Whether one plays golf or not, there has been a general understanding that these facilities ultimately serve the local community.

A green fee of £200 per round appears to signal a very different direction. It raises a legitimate question: are we creating a sporting facility for Guernsey residents, or a luxury destination designed primarily for those with very substantial disposable incomes?

There is, of course, nothing wrong with investment. Nor is there anything wrong with aspiring to create a world-class venue. However, world-class facilities should not come at the expense of community accessibility. The true measure of success should not be whether a course attracts wealthy visitors or celebrity golfers, but whether ordinary islanders feel that a part of their island remains open and relevant to them.

I suspect I am not alone in feeling uneasy about this. If I feel aggrieved as someone who now visits the island, I can only imagine how many residents must feel watching one of Guernsey’s most recognisable recreational spaces move further beyond the reach of ordinary people.

This is ultimately a wider issue than golf. It concerns stewardship, community value and the kind of island Guernsey wishes to be. When major developments take place on limited island land, should there not be a stronger expectation that accessibility, social value and local benefit form part of the equation?

I hope the debate is only just beginning.

Mark Bougourd
Somerset