1

DA

Another victory for the planning robots who must obey the holy grail of planning law regardless of any consideration to the real world.
By the way does anyone remember in the early eighties the previous owner of Beaucette brought over an old light vessel with a view to convert it to a restuarant, I believe the intention was to moor it outside of the marina but I may be wrong. Marine & General Engineers Ltd. did a lot of preparation work on the vessel. I can’t remember why it never happened, maybe the then IDC had the same viewpoint as our current high and mighty arrogant planners do.

Report abuse

3

Dave Barrett

Obviously against the policies of the Nautical Area Plan!

I don’t have a copy of the area map but I wonder if the semi tidal basin of the marina is zoned at all. The planners might be out of their canoe here.

Report abuse

5

Local Guern

I am disgusted, and i want answers why the planning dont let these things go ahead which are great for the island, my self and many other people i have spoken to were really looking forward to having a floating restaurant at the north of the island. Mr haines also wanted to rebuild the top restaurant and that would have looked great with a lot more facilities.Just one more thing why are people letting these planners make these decisions which are ruining this island i just wish every body would stand up and demand answers.

Report abuse

7

Martino

You’re right to highlight the political make-up of this department Ray. Yet another terrible decision. I’m sure Mr Haines’ excellent proposal was scuppered by the grey, faceless planners but Sirrett and his spineless mob should have shown the balls and the common sense to allow it to go through.
Ironic that the only time they went against the planners’ advice was to stop a poxy phone mast going up. You can be sure they’ll allow lagan’s to put erect a temporary village at the Mallard vinery despite the fact that there’s plenty accommodation for the airport workers at the Manor and elsewhere.

Report abuse

9

Ray

Ted

I fully agree that the Environment department has to apply the law as it stands

I fully agree that if people don’t like the provisions of the law they should get it changed

Who do we look to to get a bad law changed?

Unfortunately it’s the five numpties who have been sitting on their hands drawing their £500 per week for the last four years

Surely they must have realised that something is rotten in their department.I can’t vote out Mr Rowles and his fellow pedants and by accident of address I can only try to vote out one of the five aforementioned ‘statesmen’

It’s time that the voting population made a stand and getting shot of the pretty useless bunch who are supposed to be running Environment on our behalf would be a good start

Mr Honeybill, not that I’ve ever had the pleasure of a visit from you at election time, please save yourself a visit to my Vale home next March / April

Report abuse

11

Neil

Why would anyone invest 500k on a floating restaurant without first seeking permission?

Fences and the odd wall, well ok, chance your arm if you must.

You’d have to have more money than sense to blow that kind of cash surely?

Report abuse

13

DA

@ Ted, I agree that the planners need to control development otherwise any tom dick or harry would be doing anything they pleased.
The issue most folk have with the current environment department is their seemingly rigid determination to stifle anything by hiding behind the RAP, UAP or any other planning laws. Surely it is for the planners to review their policies and amend them if required or directed to by our elected representatives who sit on the committee, though they in this case are just as arrogant as the civil servants (Syvrets blanket ban on repsonding to articles in the GEP is clear evidence of this).
Why must the planning laws be LAW, Laws take forever to rewrite and seem set in stone.
I think most would like to see the planning rules used as a framework with due consideration given to applications that fall outside of the rules assessed on individual merit and value to the community as a whole

Report abuse

15

Danny

These English planners have really lost the plot, First of all what business is it of theirs whether a floating restaurant is likely to be a viable business or not. Absurdly they say that there is an existing restaurant already there and a second is not needed. That flawed logic didn’t apply to the Roll Bar on the Bridge at St Sampson as they granted permission for an identical business right next door. Also why is a restaurant in a land mark building in town (the old Le Lièvre’s building) any more viable as a business in an area with lots of other restaurants? We have an election coming up folks, let’s rid ourselves of these short-sighted deputies and get someone in at the head of the Environment department that will reign in these imported planners and introduce some common sense back into all our lives.

Report abuse

17

Steven

To be fair, the marinas are for the use of mooring private boats, not for floating restaurants. But quite why we issue housing licenses for planners is quite beyond me. We have the ability to plan for ourselves.

Report abuse

19

Dellquay

The environment have really lost the plot. Guernsey is suffering badly from lack of tourists and anything that makes it better for them and for locals should be supported and appreciated. Please I just cannot believe this decision. They should overturn it immediately so we can still retain some faith in our planners. You only have to go to the Uk and even industrial Ireland where I come from to see what is being done to attract people to certain areas.They are not stifling business but encouraging it. But yet again these idiots running the Planning Department are ruining any forward thinkers that we have. Poor Mr Haines you have all our support. What a missed opportunity. You needn’t bother asking for my vote Deputy Honeybill as I live in the Vale. Other voters in the other parishers take note – do not vote for these backward thinking plods. Someone in higher authority should do something NOW before they stop or close down everything. I am livid.

Report abuse

21

5 idiots

Planners folowing rules? Absolute Rubbish!!!!

The same Rural area plan applies to a butcher as it did a gift retailer that was using the same site previously, however the butcher can produce and continue to trade but the retailer who was intending to diversify to producing some of its own products (like the butcher does) was told NO! Ask any advocate/lawyer and they will more than likely tell you that if the planners were following the same “rules and regulations” then the butchers would have been given the same answer as the gift retailer and the same reason plus their nature of product should not be being produced under the current category which i believe is cat 37 of the light industrial classifications. (meat is classed a a perishable product). The butchers would need to apply for another change of use that allows meat products as at the moment,according to the written policies they are also trading on site illegally….Or maybe they have a link to the one or two of the main supermarket outlets which also have a very good link in the form of a couple of it’s directors being involved with the environment! (alledgedly). These pompus gits have no idea what they are doing as they continuously contradict themselves,that’s what happens when the laws are made to only bend to suit the businesses of those in power and their “friends”!!

Appeal Mr Haines, Environment may not want any “Touristy” interests on the Island but WE DO!

Report abuse

23

Ray

My apologies go to Mr Honeybill who I accused of never visiting me in the Vale at polling time …that’s most likely down to the fact that he is a St Peter Port North Deputy!

However that now makes my democratic position even worse

Not one of the five numpties who are allowing their civil servants to interpret the planning laws in the most idiotic ways have to rely on the thousands of votes cast in the Vale or St Sampsons

This Environment Department has to be truly the WORST Environment Department EVER and it is single handedly dragging down the rest of the States with it

If Trott wasn’t off island so often on private or public business he might have found the time in the last four years to show some leadership and have a quiet word with this pathetic excuse for a committee

Meanwhile I,and several thousand other northern voters,have to sit quietly by and rely on the common sense of voters in the five other districts to rise up and finally say enough is enough and get shot of this particular bunch of freeloaders

I believe I now have some understanding of how frustrated the Americans felt just before the Boston Tea Party

Report abuse

25

Northern Sole

As someone who’s lived within 500 yards or so of Beaucette for 35 years and been a former mooring holder there, I’ve long thought of the marina as a wasted opportunity. While not a particular fan of the idea of a floating restaurant, I’d perhaps suggest that this was proposed out of a sense of frustration with the Environment Dept over previously submitted plans.

There’s no question that the planning department needs to be kept in their box by their political masters. The planning officers shouldn’t be the puppeteers. The Deputies on the Environment Dept Committee should be watching over planning law but also exercising its influence over its officers for the betterment of Guernsey. As our represntatives they have to accept the responsibility of control. We don’t need another tier of elected civil servants.

As part of their brief the current sirring members should be looking to the future and what can help to sustain a community when its primary GDP provider moves on. And it will.

One of our few resources will be tourism and quality of life – these are not necessarily contradictory. I can see no reason why the ugly ‘control tower’ appearance of the current structure that exists at Beaucette Marina could not be replaced with a landmark two storey building, which could include a restaurant, bar and balcony at first floor level. A tennis court, swimming pool and such like facilities would be obvious additional attractions.

Report abuse

27

Ray

Ted

That would be the same Royal Court that according to a recent article costs £750 per hour to use?

Isn’t there an appeal panel of sensible Guerns available in a case like this or are those panels just there to sort out the chancers from the real victims in employment disputes?

I wonder if Mr Rowles, the man apparently in total charge at Environment, has ever considered why the Captain’s Table in Herm is so popular with locals and tourists? I would say it’s because of the attraction of a boat trip to go with an excellent meal… something different … just as dining on a floating restaurant would be

This man needs to be sent back to the UK for further training

Report abuse

29

A.J.

Well said DA. I agree entirely with your comments. Yes, we do need some sort of control. But by that I mean ‘by Guernsey people’ It has long been obvious to most of us, that this Island is overpopulated,and that is the main cause of all our problems,which have been, for far too long, under the control of immigrant civil servants who ( upto now anyway ) cannot be removed.

Report abuse

31

Geoff

Ray – “That would be the same Royal Court that according to a recent article costs £750 per hour to use?”
You forgot to add legal fees of £400-£500 an hour as you will need an advocate to make sense of the laws.

Report abuse

33

Ray

Geoff

Absolutely right.’Justice’ doesn’t come cheap on our little rock

The fault in many cases lies with poorly prepared legislation.Any law that is so badly drafted that it requires hours of expensive argument from two opposing sides to interpret what the lawmakers meant is bad law
e.g. …

Speed limit 35MPH .. good law
Drink driving limit .. good law
Four legged sh*t machines banned from beaches between specified dates .. good law

Fishing limits which do not stand up to scrutiny .. bad law
Employment legislation requiring the introduction of lay panels to sort out..bad law
Planning rules which can be twisted to suit whatever an out of control planner feels like on any particular day of the week .. bad law

Report abuse

35

Geoff

Ray I made an error in my calculation for legal fees!
Having taken legal advice myself on an issue I have with Planning the fees were nearly £600 an hour! £390 for the Advocate and £195 for his assistant. Costly business to fight injustice as I don’t have the taxpayer behind me covering my costs like they do.

Report abuse

37

Bridge

@Peter Sirett: Any half-wit knows that the Planning Appeals Panel is comprised of States Yes-men. So don’t bore us all with patronising remarks about not needing the Royal Court – the public aren’t as stupid as you clearly think they are.

The fact is that the Environment Dept is a DISGRACE and EVERYONE knows it.

Report abuse

39

Ray

Thank you Pete Sirett

The planning refusal document confirms the widespread belief that the planning department’s default setting is ‘Refuse everything if there is the slightest possibility that we can justify our interpretation of the Law’

There appears to be no objection on the grounds of visual impact,nature conservation,nuisance to neighbours or car parking facilities

The decision seems in the main to be based on the fact that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that there is an acknowledged demand of the visitor population for the proposed restaurant

Under the heading ‘Consultations’ is the single word ‘none’

I take it that in this new era of joined up government no one has bothered to seek out the Tourist Board’s view

So how can the applicant demonstrate a visitor population demand? The marina hosts up to 600 visitors each year.Would a 600 signature petition suffice or perhaps it would only require a 51% poll of 306 signatures to carry the day

Unfortunately we all know that petitions carry very little weight in democratic Guernsey

Here’s a suggestion.Policy RE4 allows for extension,alteration,re-building or other works to existing premises

Re-visit the application and treat it not as a NEW retail outlet but as an EXTENSION of the existing facilities

Report abuse

41

FlyingScot

@Ted – well said! In what other field does the GP argue that the law should be applied with ‘flexibility’ & ‘common sense’? Criminal? Civil – no, only in planning. If people don’t like the law, by all means campaign and vote for it to be changed – but don’t argue that it should be applied (only when it comes to Planning) ‘flexibly’ – i.e. – ‘if I like it its ok, if not, no’ – then we’d be back to the IDC and ‘does your face fit?’ The GP campaigns for the Environment Board to ‘listen to islanders’ – and when they do, over the Vodaphone/AirTel mast have a complete hissy fit and denounce them for not ‘listening to the experts’….Moral of the story – they (civil servants or politicians) – can’t win!

By all means, vote the current lot out – but be careful what you wish for!

@Deputy Sirett – thank you for ‘putting your head above the parapet’ – yours, truly, is a thankless task. Bring back the ribbon development of bungalows! (Not.)

Report abuse