Select a region
Homeowners living near La Grande Mare are continuing to challenge the ongoing redevelopment of the golf course with questions over whether a 'silver bullet' could bring the controversial pylons down.
The self-described "opponents of the driving range" have pointed out that reasons given for a lack of progress on plans for key worker housing within the grounds of the Princess Elizabeth Hospital may also apply to the multi-million pound project at Vazon.
Le Bordage Seath - a field adjacent to the Duchess of Kent house - is subject to plans for residential development, but the work there has stalled - purportedly due to concerns the plans may not satisfy planning policy S5.
That policy concerns developments considered to be of strategic importance.
The opponents to La Grande Mare's ongoing development have referred to Policy S5 as a 'silver bullet' and have now posed the query that if it has played a part in stalling plans to build key worker accommodation at the hospital then is it correct that the private development of a golf course be allowed under the same policy, effectively overcoming elements of the proposal that would otherwise sit outside the IDP.
The neighbouring homeowners, who have not hidden their dislike of the pylons lining the planned driving range near the Rue du Gele side of the site, are now asking why such a private development is classed as 'of strategic importance' when the development of key worker housing is not.
Pictured: The field within the grounds of the PEH which has been earmarked for housing.
Jason Le Ray has been appointed spokesperson for the group of homeowners opposing the ongoing development.
“We consider the purpose of Policy S5 to be for exceptional cases and only for developments of critical strategic importance to the Island such as a Hospital, Power Generation, or Coastal Defences etc., not for the enhancement of an existing private golf course.
"Whilst it is possible that the facility may provide economic benefit for Guernsey it is unlikely to be at the strategic level surely intended by Policy S5. No supporting budgets or estimates, either with or without the driving range, were included in the Planning Application Report, nor were any figures provided when we asked for sight of them.”
Mr Le Ray also welcomed the support given to a petition calling for the pylons to be removed.
With nearly 5,000 people putting their names to the petition, the Vazon residents say this shows there is clear opposition to the driving range aspect of the development.
"We are deeply heartened by the overwhelming response to our petition," said Mr Le Ray.
"The tremendous number of signatures reflects the shared sentiment within our community that our landscape is precious, in increasingly short supply and should be fervently protected."
Pictured: One of the artist's impressions of the new look golf club planned at La Grande Mare.
Mr Le Ray, and the other organisers of the petition, say they are not opposed to the overall development at La Grande Mare - but more the scale of the driving range, which is marked by 17 pylons - some 30m high.
The organisers of the petition are "keen to emphasise that their ultimate goal is to find a solution that represents the correct balance between La Grande Mare's development and its impact on the area".
Mr Le Ray said no one is against the hotel, chalets or even the golf course, but the issue is with the driving range.
“The comments posted alongside the on-line element of our petition support our belief that 17 pylons in a green, low-lying, rural part of our Island deserved outright planning rejection. Guernsey is already adequately served with its two other driving ranges and there really is no need to force fit a third range into an inappropriate space which compromises an area of natural beauty on the West Coast.
"Our planning department owe the Guernsey Public a duty of care and we are concerned that opportunity for the ‘layman’ to easily uncover and understand the most controversial element of this proposal has not been anticipated by our Planning Department.
"With a multifaceted, complicated application such as this (47 drawings/supporting documents to view), our planning department should have put themselves in the shoes of the ‘layman’ and insisted on scale models, on-site impact assessments and also by simply including the Pylons/Netting in the original Public Notice descriptions. Such action would have properly informed the Public ahead of the Public Consultation period. Then there is no question that more than 13 objections to the plans would have been submitted.
"The number of signatures collected with our petition is proof positive of that. This would have led to an Open Planning meeting where the outcome could have been very different. We call for change in the Public Consultation processes and a full review of this particular application.”
Petition launched in opposition to La Grande Mare pylons
What are the potential remedies to the La Grande Mare pylon
DPA's approach to delegating La Grande Mare planning application criticised
Hotel Group supports La Grande Mare plans
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.