Attempts to redevelop St Peter Port into ‘industrial port’ quashed

Sunday 20 June 2021

An alternative £460 million development of St Peter Port - even more expensive than the original - was thrown out by the States.

Amendment six was based on one of many scenarios reviewed by the Ports Board and its consultants over the last two years.

It would have included a new breakwater extending nearly half a kilometre out to sea, to accommodate a new international ferry terminal built at the end of the East Arm.

“We are only going to have this [debate] once in our lifetime and we need to get it right,” said the amendment's proposer Deputy Al Brouard, when discussing the options for harbour development.

“My preference is to expand and enhance St Peter Port,” he said.

Pictured: The project would have taken 12 years to complete.

The proposal was staunchly opposed by many in the Assembly, including STSB President Peter Roffey, whose own £360m proposals were sunk by the States later in the meeting.

“This amendment takes us in a very poor direction indeed,” said Deputy Roffey.

“To listen to some people in this debate one could’ve been forgiven for thinking that the option of putting a new deepwater port at Longue Hougue was being put forward by a bunch of clowns who know nothing about the sea.

“Note that it was the preferred option of an expert panel, including the harbourmaster and ports team.

“We are just the conduits. We [STSB] don’t pretend that we are the experts, but neither are the other members of this Assembly,” he argued.

Pictured: Many argued that the proposal to turn St Peter Port into an industrial harbour would ruin its aesthetic.

Deputy Brouard fought for development to be focused in St Peter Port because he thought it would future proof the island.

“We want to look forward to the next 100 years as our forefathers did,” he said. “It’s such a big investment, we need to get it right and we need to get it right first time.”

He argued that ships are getting bigger, and the island needs a larger port to accommodate them. 

“In the future, a 200 metre ferry could call in at Guernsey, but it can’t now,” he said.

Additionally, he said an expansion of St Peter Port would be less affected by the tides as a new port at Longue Hougue would be; and it would allow for St Sampson's to become a full-time leisure marina in 10 years' time.

Pictured: “We have the opportunity to increase our infrastructure and future-proof ourselves,” said Deputy Brouard.

Despite the argument for it, Deputies Nicholas Moakes, Lindsay de Sausmarez, and Lyndon Trott stood against it, among many others.

“I don’t think we can underestimate the very big aesthetic impact this will have,” said Deputy de Sausmarez, the Environment & Infrastructure President. 

“When you look at what is proposed, there is so much hard infrastructure, and that hard infrastructure will see a significant amount of land created. It’s going to look like an industrial port,” she said, to which Deputy Moakes agreed.

“The traffic will be terrible, and I expect if you’re unloading bulk cargo there’ll be a lot of dust," he said. "Add this together and this makes our greatest asset [St Peter Port] somewhere you wouldn’t want to go.”

Pictured: The Assembly rejected STSB’s preferred option, to build a new port at Longue Hougue.

STSB’s preferred option will cost the States of Guernsey £360 million, however, Deputy Brouard’s option would’ve cost £460 million, an additional spend of £100 million that Deputy Trott couldn’t compute.

“I would like to ask Deputy Brouard; how would he seek to fund this quite extraordinary sum of money?” he asked.

“If he can’t answer that, then this is not a meaningful alternative but a wrecking motion. It’s a way of seeing nothing done.”

The proposal was voted out 23 – 12, with three abstentions and two absentees.