| Author |
Message |
Tim Hollingsworth
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2010 - 02:36 pm: |   |
MY VIEW is the brewery site should be made a cinema. Firstly, the façade will be kept, which is quite iconic. Secondly, a place for families to enjoy (and visitors alike on a rainy day). Put a nice place to eat in there, nothing sophisticated, cheap and cheerful food, you could have a whole evening of it – I am sure it would work on many levels. Thirdly, instead of going to a pub, people could rediscover what a night out is with a walk home.
If I was advising an investor, just one screen, two levels of seats, it would be a goldmine.
TIM HOLLINGSWORTH. |
Shane Langlois
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 31, 2010 - 02:14 pm: | |
RE. recent articles and letters regarding A-boards.
Keeping our public highways free from obstructions has been the object of legislation for a good few centuries. From new building work encroaching over the road boundary to outward opening window shutters and gates.
A 1935 ordinance allows fines to be imposed on those who: ‘...impede a public highway in the said parish (St Peter Port) by placing objects or merchandise so as to obstruct passers-by.’
The ordinance goes on to include the Commercial Arcade in the expression ‘public highway’ and of course a pavement is part of the public highway. In addition there is an older, more general ordinance forbidding leaving objects obstructing the public highway in any parish.
This is very straightforward but it appears to have been conflated in the minds of some, during the ‘A-boards debate’, with our current planning law under which putting out advertising signs and A-boards on private or public land might be restricted or require permission.
The 1935 ordinance does not confer any rights or duties on St Peter Port’s parish officials but it is only to be expected that they take an interest in its enforcement.
SHANE LANGLOIS,
Chairman,
Guernsey Douzaine Council. |
M. W. Taylor
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 03:09 pm: | |
OVER the last four weeks, commuters have accepted diversions into Town because of a well overdue new road surface requirement in the Grange. Now complete, having been reopened to traffic on Friday 20 August, everyone must be pleased.
But hang on, what have we ended up with? Well, the road surface is fine, but what about the kerbstones? As I see it, this is just another act of vandalism to Guernsey’s heritage. Here we did have an example of beautiful unbroken granite kerbing running up from St Julian’s Avenue, through the Grange and beyond, which enhanced St Peter Port’s Georgian properties along that route and all over the island.
Now we have a long section of the Grange with ugly pale concrete kerbing that looks so out of place. Just who is responsible for this further destruction of the unique feel and appearance of St Peter Port? Is somebody going to own up to this desecration or not? Or will we receive a tepid explanation from some anglicised civil servant or politician who has no feeling for the island they live and work in?
No doubt the excuse will be either cost cutting, health and safety, or drainage modifications. If it is the latter, then the only drainage problem I have noted over the years is in the vicinity of Doyle Road junction after a very heavy downpour.
However, none of these explanations could outweigh the loss of the granite kerbing in this road. And what of the granite kerbs – do they end up as perks to the contractor? Or in someone’s drive?
How long has this island had to put up with the relentless chipping away of its soul in more ways than one.
Close the Grange again and reinstate the granite kerbing at once please, and if Heritage has a voice, start shouting too.
M. W. TAYLOR |
Ted Ogier
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2010 - 02:37 pm: | |
I CAN’T be the only one who has the solution to the Leale’s problem, am I?
It stands out like a sore thumb to me. All that is needed is a guarantee that the following shops will be accommodated within the complex: Creasey’s, M&S, Wallis, Top Shop and Principles. Then, once that is established, increase the rents to any other interested businesses that may be in competition with them, making it impossible for them to trade and eureka, we have the already St Peter Port tried-and-tested solution to satisfy the so-called Town Traders Association. Well, one of them at least.
Just add a little congested exit road, similar to the Admiral Park fiasco whereby cars are squeezed out of exiting left to St Sampson’s at the traffic lights (must have been because they didn’t have enough land at planning stage to accommodate two full lanes approaching the lights, cough, cough) and hey presto. What’s all the fuss about? Problem solved.
Just in case I haven’t made it clear... Co-op, I am behind you all the way. Best thing that could ever happen to the island and St Sampson’s.
TED OGIER |
Mark Passmore
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, August 23, 2010 - 02:36 pm: | |
I WROTE a little while back and one of your editorial team visited me last week regarding the ongoing saga of A-boards.
As you are aware, the physical presence of any type of these boards is in breach of the vehicular traffic law relating to hindrance and obstruction on any public byway/highway or States-owned land. At present, this law is only upheld by the Guernsey Police in St Peter Port parish, supported by Constable Tasker from St Peter Port Douzaine.
As it turns out, the Environment Department also has a law governing the A-board and similar style promotional devices, as it seems to only class items that have ‘advertising’ attached as in breach of the law, yet will allow the use of hedge veg and petrol stations to use these for the same purpose.
I have a question, which perhaps both sections of the law would like to address. As advertising placement is an obstruction with the vehicular law and in breach of advertising content with Environment, where do they both stand in regard to all of the advertising that we see every day on our roads, which does not seem to require any form of controlled licence, unless it is also covered by both laws? I talk about the company vans with livery, delivery couriers, pink cars with the Playboy bunny decals on the side. All these push out advertising.
What’s to stop me painting my company van with a huge advert saying ‘everything half price today, just come to xxxx company’ and parking it in noticeable placing around the island? It would be a big advertisement, it would be highly visible, it would be a distraction to other road users, yet there is no law to stop me doing this, unless there is a law that we don’t know about, and which we are all breaking every time we put a donkey sticker on our bumper.
Where does it all end? The law in this respect is so cumbersome and so unable to be controlled by either party.
When I met with Environment in November 2009 to discuss solutions to the A-board problem, it was a stern ‘no’. And when I suggested alternative options such as light projections onto pavement, moving my board flat and mounting it onto the shop wall, everything received a resounding ‘no’. But apparently, if I placed a really big sign inside my shop window, there was nothing they could do about it. A few millimetres of glass made the difference as it would no longer be in the public area, even though it would be just as visible. Madness.
To top it off, the lady from Environment stated that they would be extremely reluctant to prosecute anyone for breach of the law, because if they did this to one person, they would have to do this to every person, retailer, shopkeeper, island-wide. And they would not have the time or resources for that. Indeed, can you imagine what this would do to the court system if 5,000+ cases were to suddenly arise?
I agree that some common sense needs to prevail. Everywhere in the world, A-boards are used to promote trade and business and the laws relating to these should be updated to reflect the modern way of doing business. All parties should meet, with suggestions of how the system should be almost self-governing. The police don’t want to be bothered with petty issues such as this when they have sex predators to find and Environment need to step into the real world where we all live and allow themselves to work with the people and relax the stagnant and Victorian attitude they seem to relish as a jobsworth issue.
Each parish seems to handle this differently. St Peter Port and Vale have issues, as the constables of the parish either support the law, or give no support to the proprietor of the A-boards.
A simple solution would be to allow one standard-sized board per business, granted under a new licence act, allowing use of such board for advertising within the confines of the business. Any breach of this would result in that business either having a daily fixed fine applied until conditions were met, or having their board licence revoked.
MARK PASSMORE,
Balloonees.com and guernseygift.com,
9, Commercial Arcade,
St Peter Port |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 02:58 pm: | |
I AM not having a ‘pop’ at Deputy Jack Honeybill, as he puts it, but has the Treasury and Resources minister disappeared off our planet or has he more important issues to deal with?
I say this because whatever matters giving concern to the electorate are raised Deputy Jack is there with an answer.
He has development experience prior to his involvement with the Bridge development when he or his company put in the first application to develop the controversial Cornet Street site, now under different ownership.
I am sure he did not mean to intrude into his department’s debate on this matter.
Name and address withheld. |
J. A. Moore
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, August 14, 2010 - 10:02 am: | |
READING the Guernsey Press yesterday brought back unpleasant memories.
I own a piece of land in Rue des Monts – I own the front part of the land and they own the rear of the site.
Since 1990 they wanted to construct a car park for St Sampson’s Secondary School. They offered me a pittance for the land and I told them that I was not interested.
In 2003, I had a phone call from an official and the conversation went like this:
She said, ‘We would like to meet you on site’. I said, ‘What do you want to meet me on site for?’ ‘We are going to construct a car park around your land.’ I said, ‘How come it has taken you 13 years to realise that?’
The way she talked to me reminded me of Maggie Thatcher talking to the miners.
Well, if this was not bullying, there must be a different word for it.
I would like to say to the person who won’t sell at the airport, good luck to you because you will need it.
MR J. A. MOORE. |
Bob Chilcott
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 10, 2010 - 04:38 pm: | |
I WAS greatly concerned to read about the proposals for the disposal of States-owned premises in Smith Street and particularly when I heard Deputy Honeybill on BBC Guernsey telling us that the proposed developers would do such a great job.
Maybe I am a little cynical, but the gentleman heading this proposed development is none other than the developer who so ‘enhanced’ our wonderful Markets and who promised so much for St Peter Port as a result of this work. I wonder what is the special deal that has been struck with the developer in that he has 12 months to think about the plans. Will we ever know, or will it be another ‘secret’ arrangement as with the Markets?
I leave it to your readers to conclude both how well the developer has done regarding his negotiating with the States of Guernsey and how much the ancient and historic town of St Peter Port has benefited.
May I refer to the third paragraph of Joel de Woolfson’s article on Page 5 of the 3 August edition of your paper in which Deputy Honeybill states that he ‘finds it incredible that people get on their political platform and in ignorance try to put off something that T & R is working through in a very business-like manner.’ And he goes on further in his comments to your reporter to criticise those deputies who are not in favour of the sell-off of Aurigny and accuses them of being short-sighted. Aurigny was up and running long before Deputy Honeybill graced our shores.
What Deputy Honeybill fails to understand is that we, the taxpayers, own Aurigny and that we elect our representatives to consider all matters relating to good governance in our island, not just to listen to his abuse of their considerations or their public statements. In my view and that of many others, if ever there was a case of business ineptitude the handling of the airline situation by T & R would win an Oscar.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of the T & R proposals, the way they have handled the situation really beggars belief and when all and sundry are giving their points of view, to gag possibly the one person more knowledgeable than anyone else and who actually runs the airline is an absolute disgrace. I very much hope our States members will have read both the letters printed in your paper from Advocate John Langlois and Mr G. Colclough, whose legal minds have clearly dismissed the myth put about by T & R about the golden share and its security regarding the slots at Gatwick.
BOB CHILCOTT,
bobchilcott@ cwgsy.net. |
Max Gosling
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 03:04 pm: | |
IN THE late 70s I used to bring the RN Naval Air Command soccer team over to Guernsey to play an Island XI but the main purpose was a memorial service linked to the loss of warships and lives off Guernsey during the Second World War and for the efforts of the Guernsey people.
I can’t remember the actual church except that it was beautiful but what did implant itself in my mind was a headstone, obviously relating to a father who had lost his son.
It read something like: ‘I planned this day a different way, but God’s delayed our meeting.’
It was just inside the gateway to the church on the left-hand side and I would always make a point of finding it on the three years I visited.
I recently returned to the island for the first time since then and had a lovely weekend staying with my friends, Mike and Sarah-Jane Stratford... Mike is one of your special constables.
The island seems to have changed little, still very beautiful and what a lovely new airport you have.
Adversely, I thought the new apartment blocks to the north-east side of the harbour rather spoilt matters and looked like warehouses from a distance... progress, I guess.
MAX GOSLING, Lt-Commander, Royal NAVY (Ret.),
Hants. |
S. J. Cuss
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 17, 2010 - 02:20 pm: | |
FIRSTLY, I must point out that I never have had nor do I now have any connection with the Environment Department. Indeed, there are many planning decisions that I find to be somewhat idiosyncratic and have signed the eyesores petition. However, in the case of their long-running battle with Mr and Mrs Bougourd, I wholeheartedly support them in their action to demolish this illegal development. Were they to back down, it would make a mockery of the new laws that give Environment real teeth to stop such owners from exceeding an approved planning application. I have direct knowledge of the history of this case and feel annoyed that they endeavour, through your pages, to garner public sympathy for their case.
The history of the development goes back to 2007/8. They had permission to alter and extend an existing bungalow. When construction commenced they decided off their own bat to increase the size of the footprint beyond that on the approved plans.
As a consequence, the increased size meant that the roof pitch was altered and hence the ridge height had to be raised above that on the approved plans. Throughout the development, the Bougourds flagrantly ignored repeated instructions from Environment to demolish the offending walls and revert to the approved footprint. They even went to the expense of employing an advocate to write a long letter seeking retrospective approval for their revised plan. Following complaints from neighbours and the douzaine, the Environment Department stuck to their guns and ultimately, and quite rightly, refused to sign off the finished structure. Mr and Mrs Bougourd have nobody to blame but themselves for the mire that they now find themselves in and do not deserve any sympathy.
In practical terms, the only way to ensure compliance with the approved plans is to demolish a large part, if not all, of the house. I trust that the Environment Department will succeed in their attempts to either demolish the building or ensure that it is subsequently built to the approved plans. Again, they deserve no sympathy for their plight.
S. J. CUSS. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 09:53 am: | |
MY HUSBAND recently built a flat in Town for which planning consent was given in January.
During the last week or so, he received a letter from planning telling him that the toilet in the hall did not allow for disabled access and so he would have to alter it.
The purchaser, who is able-bodied and has no disabled friends or family likely to visit, likes it the way it
is.
On visiting the hairdresser in the new Market, which is in a public place, I asked my hairdresser how disabled people managed to climb all the stairs, which are the only way to access the premises, and was told that the disabled couldn’t go there as there was no lift.
I fully understand there has to be provision for the disabled, and rightly so, but how is it that a newly-built public place, which is much more likely to be frequented by those with a disability, does not need this provision and a private house occupied by the able-bodied does?
Double standards?
Name and address withheld. |
Nigel Collins
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, June 14, 2010 - 09:50 am: | |
I WOULD like to extend this open invitation to any one of our 47 deputies to bring an amendment to the current Urban Area Plan to change the wording to the effect that, instead of saying a high building is one that significantly exceeds the general height of surrounding buildings and will usually include all buildings exceeding the equivalent of four/five domestic stories in height and goes on to say proposals for buildings, which are significantly higher than their surroundings, will only be acceptable in very exceptional circumstances. The wording should be changed to 'exceeding the equivalent of three domestic stories in height'.
Several recent developers have taken full advantage of the current planning laws to include four- and five-storey buildings in their designs. They can argue that they are within the law and within the planning briefs for the areas.
One could argue that St Peter Port is the exception, but it's not too late for St Sampson's and the Vale. The Leale's Yard and Saltpans developments do not need to go to four stories high, this will have a detrimental affect on the surrounding areas especially the Saltpans site, which borders a wildlife and nature conservation area. The effect of 45ft-high buildings on these sites will totally obliterate the present skyline views of all of its neighbours and again in the case of the Saltpans site will be three times higher than the recently demolished greenhouses on the site.
I wonder whether the now vastly demised growing industry missed a trick there in not applying to build greenhouses three times higher therefore possibly saving on fuel and making a difference to their profitability, after all said and done this 'industrial site', sorry, my mistake, 'cyber park', has only profit as it's motive.
I wonder if any deputy is willing to step forward to try and avoid Guernsey ending up with a city status.
Some will say what's wrong with Hong Kong.
NIGEL COLLINS. |
Francis Paul
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 02:14 pm: | |
AS ONE of the 64,000 odd people who did not sign it, I was relieved to hear Deputy Peter Sirett’s message that nothing is to change on the planning front in response to the recent ‘Eyesore petition.’
Surely enough carefully thought-out controls already exist on an
individual’s freedom of choice in planning matters? Do we really wish to further smother innovation? If ‘eyesores’ happen, so be it – what
is seen as ‘incongruous’ today may well be cherished by future
generations.
While our natural and built heritage both deserve respect, change must be allowed, and indeed encouraged, if Guernsey is to remain a vibrant as well as a pleasant place to work and live.
Guernsey has a long tradition of successfully adapting to change. With the serious economic and other challenges currently facing us, more than ever we need to foster a ‘can do’ culture, otherwise we risk
stagnation and decline.
Pressure for more restrictive planning laws, to dictate what new
houses should look like, to perhaps enforce the ‘mock Guernsey’ school of architecture, is hardly the way ahead.
FRANCIS PAUL. |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Thursday, June 10, 2010 - 02:10 pm: | |
I HAVE to write in response over the debate with the so called 'Freds in the shed' which went to the States on 28 April. It amazes me how the ministers from the Environment Department and C&E said they had found 30 to 40 sites which they had narrowed down to six, of which only three were passed for possible use, which I must add do not have buildings on.
Now what I would like to ask is if they do allow these three sites to be used for 'Freds in the shed', the owners would have to build which would put the cost of the land up to a point which 'Fred' would not be able to afford. So, surely out of these 30 to 40 sites they could have found some which have buildings in place already which would keep the cost down.
The minister from C&E said they had worked hard over the past years to get this far and that she was pleased this matter had come to an end. From where I am sat it looks like not a lot of thought had gone in to this at all.
Everybody moans about the 'white vans' coming to the island to do the jobs which the local companies should be completing. The reasons being are that first, the locals have to charge more because they have to pay such high rents because there is a shortage of affordable workshops, and second a lot of the local companies are shutting down because they have to give up their workshops to make way for housing, or because the owners know they can get more for archive stores or the likes.
Years ago we had plenty of industrial land but now a lot of it has had offices built on it. Surely if you take away land for industrial use then look at the options of what's left, it leaves the possible use of greenhouse sites or disused farm buildings. I am not saying all should be used but there is some that could and should.
With a little more 'help' from Environment and C&E 'Fred in the shed' will be able to join the list along with the dodo and woolly mammoth, so come on, get your act together and live in the real world and help, not hinder people who want to make a living.
Name and address withheld. |
G. R. Skuse
Guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 09, 2010 - 02:19 pm: | |
A FEW months ago I set out on a little three-fold venture: (1) to have a bit of fun (we all need that); (2) to save a few shillings (well my wife and I are pensioners) and finally to prove that the 'majority' of our elected leaders are a little slow off the mark (the easiest of the three).
After a conversation with an English cousin of mine I decided to invest £5 in seeds. To be precise, radish, lettuce, chives, dwarf and runner beans. I then set to and turned a flower bed into a vegetable patch no bigger that four square yards (never did grasp that new-fangled metric system) and so far the results are quite startling.
I went, with my wife, to a local supermarket and had a look at the prices that they are charging for the above vegetables and arrived at the following profits (so far). Ten meals or gifts to friends of radish, supermarket price 85p per bunch, profit so far on my fiver £3.50, so far, four lettuce at £1.50 per lettuce (and plenty more to come) = £6.00 profit so far, a return on my outlay of £9.50. The dwarf and runner beans are not yet ready to pick but when they are they will be frozen and used through the winter, so I cannot estimate the profit on them but if I can garner just over a tenner I will be at a profit margin of a minimum of 400%, all this on four square yards and a fiver.
At the moment the chives are not doing too well (must have a serious talk to them).
So, I hear you asking, why is this football daft, Welsh bloke bringing our elected leaders into his back garden? Well, it is quite simple.
As a former postman who travelled the island extensively and now as a retired person who still moves around the island, I am becoming increasingly aware and disillusioned with the disgraceful eyesores that our States members appear to be turning a blind eye to. Eyesores that could be used to allow younger and fitter people than myself to feed their families and possibly friends. They could, for example, form small cooperatives and work together or they could simply go it alone.
In the island we have people on community service; we also have certain categories of prisoners who could be trusted to work under supervision on these eyesores so the labour is there and would be twofold. (1) Keen people would be allowed to grow for their families again and (2) the island would benefit by having some of the disgraceful eyesores removed, thus helping tourism.
I am not for one minute suggesting that every allotment would have a shed as in parts of South Wales.
All I am asking is that the sites be cleared, perhaps a couple in each parish, and let out to keen local gardeners.
You have seen the figures that I have produced above on a four square yards size: the mind boggles at what could be achieved if a 200 x 30ft former greenhouse span was cleared.
Come on States, get your act together, clear some of these sites and let's become a 'growing island' again.
G. R. SKUSE.
skusey@ cwgsy.net. |
Deputy Bernard Flouquet
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2010 - 10:17 am: | |
The recent reviews carried out by Public Services and the Public Accounts Committee highlighted in great detail the issues that arose with regard to the New Jetty repair project. However, these were not the result of deficiency in the works carried out, but other aspects of the project such as inadequate preliminary investigations on which the original budget was based, and shortcomings in the project management.
It was these factors that led to the costs escalating far above initial estimates for the work.
Your correspondent's technical assessment seems to be based on little evidence and a number of false assumptions.
The conclusions that he/she arrives at are therefore wrong, and I do not accept the accusation that I have in any way misled the public.
Your correspondent is correct that very few repairs were undertaken below mid-tide level, but that is because the extensive survey work that was eventually carried out established the structures below that level to be sound.
Those investigations included visual inspections, hammer testing, and exploratory breakouts, which revealed clean, bright steel with no sign of corrosion.
Although I am not familiar with the photograph referred to, it will probably show that repairs to the columns come down from the top slab and stop at varying levels, typically about mid-tide level.
The level of each repair was matched on site to the condition of each individual column.
This supported the conclusions of the site investigations that there was little deterioration of the structure and reinforcement below mid-tide level requiring repair.
The assertion therefore that because the upper sections of the piles required encasing with concrete 'then presumably the reinforcement is still exposed beneath low tide level' is not accurate.
Therefore the basis for the conclusion that 'it will not be long before the structure is unsafe again' is incorrect.
The remedial work carried out has a design life of 25 years, and is therefore a lasting repair.
In addition to the visible, physical repairs, a 'cathodic protection' system has also been installed to prevent further deterioration of the reinforcement structures.
Your correspondent rightly points out that the States will have to address the long-term future of the New Jetty at some point, and at that time it may decide that the entire structure should be replaced.
I have not, as suggested, sought to distance myself from 'the decision of the previous States'. As a member of the Assembly when this project was approved, I share the collective responsibility for the decisions taken.
However, those decisions were based on the information provided, and as the recently published reviews concluded, insufficient work was done by the then Board of Administration and its contractors to assess the extent of the repairs required and that was a fundamental failing in the New Jetty project. Much better project management procedures are now in place to prevent a repeat.
Finally, I will clarify the comments attributed to me regarding the project representing good value for money. Without in any way defending the failings in the way this was managed, the repairs have ultimately been carried out to a high standard, and given the extent of the work required the price paid to the contractor was reasonable.
Deputy Bernard Flouquet,
Public Services Department minister |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 29, 2010 - 10:14 am: | |
DEPUTY Flouquet was recently quoted as saying that the contractor who received £14m. or so for work on the ferry terminal jetty 'did a good job'.
This demonstrates his lack of engineering knowledge and brings into question his suitability to be minister for Public Services.
It would appear from a photograph recently published in the Guernsey Press that no repairs were undertaken beneath the low-tide level. That being the case, a not inconsiderable part of all the supporting piles is still exposed to the corrosive action of salt water.
Given that the upper sections of the piles required encasing with concrete due to the reinforcement being exposed, then presumably the reinforcement is still exposed beneath low tide level. That being the case, then it will surely not be many years before the structure becomes unsafe again and explains why, I understand, that the contractor would not guarantee their work for more than five years. When that day arrives, perhaps then the States of the day will bite the bullet and decide that a rebuild of the complete structure is the more sensible option rather than patch and repair. Indeed, it is surely questionable whether or not that would have been the wisest option five years ago.
Surely £14m. would have contributed a very large element to the cost of a new structure and we would now have a much more durable jetty/ terminal than we are now left with, thanks to gross mismanagement of a project that should have been stopped when the cost exceeded the initial estimate.
To allow the contractor to continue with an open chequebook was entirely foolhardy and the island will pay the price for that failure in the not too distant future.
Granted that Bernard Flouquet can distance himself from the decision of the previous States to allow the contract to continue, but it is not correct for him to mislead the public into believing that 'a good job has been done' and that this jetty will still be fit for purpose in five years' time.
Name and address withheld. |
Environment Dept Spokesman
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 02:13 pm: | |
Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on your correspondent's letter.
Your correspondent contacted the department concerning an approved development on a site at the end of their substantial rear garden. The department assured your correspondent that the proposal had been carefully considered on the basis of a number of applications, all of which were advertised in the Guernsey Press.
Following consideration, it was concluded that the proposal was acceptable within the relevant planning policies of the States and would not have any material effect on neighbour amenity, which might have justified refusal of planning permission under the law.
Your correspondent was correctly advised that the impact of development on private, rather than public, views is not a material planning consideration under the law.
On the general point raised by your correspondent concerning consistency of decisions, the department's refusal rate for planning applications is currently less than 10% of all valid applications received. There is also a range of exemptions for more minor development to be carried out without the need for planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions being met. The law and exemptions are applied objectively, consistently and without discrimination.
The value of property results from a wide range of factors and potential devaluation of property is not a material planning consideration.
Environment Department spokesman |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 24, 2010 - 02:12 pm: | |
The Environment Department has taken great pains to make sure rural Guernsey is not spoilt. I think not.
There was once a beautiful valley that backed on to St Martin's Hotel, a neat bungalow nestled there and the view of the valley was beautiful to say the least. What's happened? Well, the property has been sold, knocked down and what can only be described as a mansion erected in its place, rising up from the valley floor well over the surrounding hedges, and so a view that has been enjoyed for 50 years has been completely obliterated.
Planning department's reply when I queried the building of this monstrosity was: We viewed the plan from all sides to make sure it fitted in with the surroundings (well they didn't, because they would have had to come in to my or my neighbours' garden to see the impact this building would have). And anyway, he said it can't be seen from the road and we don't take private views into account (well they wouldn't, would they? They made their promises and got elected and now they couldn't care less about the voters). You could take legal action, he continued, but we have covered ourselves and you wouldn't win.
How can they justify allowing this monstrosity to be built when we constantly hear of people not being allowed to change a flat roof to a hip roof or being able to put up a fence, all small fry? It seems the Guernseyman is the one to be stopped and penalised and anyone else who comes to the island can do as they want (one has to beg the question, one law for local market and one for open market?).
Apart from anything else, this carbuncle will probably devalue the properties backing on to the valley. Who would want to buy something with that as a view?
As you can probably guess, I am incensed by this. Maybe this is another department that should face a vote of no confidence because I certainly have no confidence in their capabilities or reasoning.
Name and address withheld.
bijoux@ cwgsy.net |
Anon
Guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 07, 2010 - 02:32 pm: | |
REFERENCE the latest comment from certain States members about the concern of St Peter Port being ruined by out of character buildings spoiling our main attraction and the need to make St Peter Port a World Heritage site.
I think most of Guernsey agrees - those, of course, with no vested interest in building. A few years ago a local building company, as an example, was allowed to build four-storey homes at the top of Hauteville and these are definite eyesores viewed from areas such as the Model Yacht Pond at Castle Cornet, from North Beach, from Victoria Road, Trinity Square. How this happened is anyone's guess.
We are told that those involved in our Environment Department who make these decisions have 'UK' experience of town planning, so until that changes, how can we protect our island homes' charm, not only St Peter Port but all over, i.e. glass-fronted homes out of character still being allowed? The system definitely has to change.
Name and address withheld. |
Lorraine Marson
Guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 27, 2010 - 02:14 pm: | |
IT IS an interesting debate in these current times of incongruous building in the island.
Scenario: The house does not have planning permission in the first place. Said person builds the house of their dreams, which was not in the parishioners' views to be in keeping with the surrounding countryside in an area of natural beauty. The said person goes to court, pays the fine, which is not substantial in relation to the value of the house, and then puts a planning sign outside the house saying that the demolishment of the original building and the new build is 'retrospective'.
The above has occurred in the parish of St Andrew's in an area of sensitivity regarding the environment. Is this now a loophole, which could be abused in the future through the word 'retrospective' with regard to a new house?
LORRAINE MARSON,
lolly@ cwgsy.net |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page
