Select a region
Politicians have twice rejected £360m plans for overhauling operations at St. Peter Port’s and St. Sampson’s harbours in this political term.
The senior committee, Policy & Resources took control of future harbour infrastructure in 2021, but they are yet to bring forward revised proposals to the Assembly.
And it has now been revealed that a timeframe for these revised plans is not clear, and firm proposals will not be coming forward anytime soon.
A new agency which hopes to oversee many of the opportunities brought about by major changes to the ports is also growing at a slow pace, and it appears to lack the direction necessary to start formulating considered ideas for the future of the east coast.
So, will a direction for the ports be perfected by 2025?
St. Peter Port harbour needs tens of millions of pounds worth of investment over the coming years just to keep current facilities functional, including replacement of the RoRo ramps used to enter and exit ferries.
The Castle Cornet breakwater needs repair, and landside harbour infrastructure is also old and deteriorating.
Several States members forced a debate on future harbour requirements and strategy back in 2019 through a Requête. It was signed by Deputies Neil Inder, Barry Paint, Heidi Soulsby, Lyndon Trott, Jonathan Le Tocq and Al Brouard.
They wanted to see the town harbour extended far out from the QEII marina, but a successful amendment directed investigations to consider St. Sampsons’ harbour too.
The hope to improve safety drove the desire to move flammable fuel imports away from the Bridge, due to proximity to residential and retail areas.
There is also the chance to reclaim large swathes of land, currently used for marine and operational activities, around both harbours.
Pictured: A two-year review showed that a multi-million pound investment in the harbours is the minimum requirement.
The States’ Trading Supervisory Board (STSB) came back with several options, but its preferred was a new port altogether, along with changes to the existing harbours. At the time it had an estimated cost of £360m, although building costs have ballooned since then.
STSB President Deputy Peter Roffey brought the proposals to the States in May 2021 following a two-year review. The plans included:
Harbourmaster Captain David Barker warned that current harbour facilities in town would “fall into the sea” unless major maintenance and replacement work was undertaken.
This project is not to be confused with the pool in the marina plans, which are two entirely independent workstreams. However, a detailed scoping exercise into improved leisure and commercial facilities in St. Peter Port were commissioned when the harbour plans were defeated.
Deputies firmly rejected these plans on two occasions: once when presented in 2021, and again in amendment form during a later debate on the future of the east coast.
Pictured: Combination 5, the STSB's flagship proposal.
The original idea was flanked by six other options, with varying degrees of project scale and cost. A ‘do nothing’ approach was discounted given the clear need to invest in critical ports infrastructure.
The cheapest option included just getting on with repairs to the current harbours, as well as extending the cruise pontoon.
The most serious challenge to STSB’s preference, stemming from the original desires of the Requête, proposed a major extension to the QEII for freight and passenger services.
Another option was similar, but incorporated fuel imports at St. Peter Port.
Most of the options proposed a new passenger terminal on North Beach or the new jetty, with underground parking to offset the loss of car parking from fresh landside development.
By far the costliest option was a new town jetty and northern port, spreading out fuel and freight importations.
Pictured: The preferred option of the requerants.
A successful amendment from P&R during the 2021 harbours debate directed the States to draw up plans for a new development agency to regenerate public land along the east coast.
In April 2022, the States strongly supported plans for the agency, which is wholly owned by the States but operates with a non-political board and can enact projects with private and third sector organisations without Assembly approval on each.
One of its core tasks is preparing a long-term plan for the eastern ports, including harbour and commercial requirements, as well as land-side development opportunities to complement. This must be done in harmony with directions agreed by the States and specific planning guidance provided by the DPA.
The agency is overseen politically by three senior politicians: Deputies Peter Ferbrache, Lindsay de Sausmarez, and Neil Inder. They must work to ensure the company produces work that is consistent with political direction, and to prepare reports and reviews into the activities and performance of the company.
In the absence of clear direction from the States or DPA on what should be done at the ports, the agency currently has just one clear mission: to investigate getting traffic off “the surface level” of the Town Quay and include how best to do that in its wider plans.
A land transfer policy has yet to be drawn up or politically approved.
Pictured: The formation of a political oversight group, and the selection of board members, are among the only visible progress seen to date on the new development agency.
The States are yet to ratify the board picks for the agency. These individuals are expected to be nodded through by deputies later this year after Policy & Resources told Scrutiny last week that a further policy letter on the development agency is coming in May or June this year.
Issues around how land is transferred from the public to private sector will need to be debated again.
At the same time the development agency was approved, P&R was also directed to draw up options for the future of the ports alongside STSB for approval by States members.
But it is not clear when new proposals will come forward, or if any meaningful legislative action will be taken before the next election.
P&R President, Deputy Ferbrache argued it would be pessimistic to not expect some resolution on the ports before 2025, but Scrutiny President Deputy Yvonne Burford rightly pointed out that if a policy letter is not forthcoming from P&R by September, the DPA is unlikely to complete its side of the deal before the States gets on an election footing.
Deputy Ferbrache has urged the Development & Planning Authority to start producing the necessary work to start the process. The Authority says it will take a year and a half in any case.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.