The Issues

The Waterfront should bring pride and recognition to Jersey and be of real benefit to the whole community. I believe the success of the waterfront depends on exceptional architecture.

We need to seek the views of great architects who put reputation before profit and who have delivered successful projects elsewhere. The waterfront has the potential to deliver great benefits to Jersey but its development needs very careful management with the public interest put first.

A place where people can enjoy going too, a place that is more green than concrete and a place that could be a tourist attraction in a sense that people would want to visit it.

Policies are a diversion

Have you noticed in life that sometimes events repeat themselves?

The reason for this is that we did not learn from the experience.

Just like our elections we do the same thing over again but we expect a different result.

It’s not possible!

When the Waterfront is finished I would like to to be the sort of place that obliges people to say - They couldn't have done better.

It needs to be spectacular, on a world class level. The public of the Island must be able to feel they are a part of it. The views will be stunning, so let's put all the cars out of sight in underground car parks and encourage, balconies, roof gardens and terraces.

We must determine how dramatic the views should be, not just of the bay, harbour, historic castles and marina, but also in altitude perpectives.

Ultimately, the quality of design should be of such a standard that architects and designers will fly in by the plane load to see how it was done. If it doesn't put Jersey "on the map" it will not have been adventurous enough.

The States, in an effort to progress development on the St Helier waterfront, formed WEB, a wholly owned States company.

WEB was challenged to create an internationally regarded waterfront that offered extensive public amenities, accommodating a vibrant residential community.

A waterfront that should be progressive and forward looking; a symbol of the new millennium and confidence in our island, and that the development should be subject to normal planning procedures and be undertaken at no cost to the taxpayer.

Despite many problems and disappointments such as the unfortunate cinema development, the steam clock, the Les Pas debacle and more recently the proposal for the twenty storey high rise developments, I firmly believe WEB to be the best vehicle to progress this exciting opportunity for Jersey.

If elected, I will seek to represent the people of Jersey as a States member on the board of WEB.

Given this opportunity, I will put the interests of our island and its people before that of any other interested parties.

My family has lived on Jersey for generations; I love and have much pride in our island, I will not see it used or spoilt.

When the Waterfront development is finished, I would like it to be seen by this community as an exciting area with a wealth of community facilities, funded out of the gains from commercial development on the site, at zero cost to the taxpayer.

That means we have to have a mix of development types on the site: If we try to insist that the entire site is developed for community purposes, there will be no income stream from the private sector, and nothing worthwhile will happen.

This is a response from the Centre Party:

Currently the Waterfront is causing enormous difficulty to many St Helier businesses. 11,000 meals a week are served on the Waterfront, meals which were previously served in other places throughout the island. Another 12 restaurants are planned which will further damage existing businesses.

Our prime concern is that there is no further duplication of existing businesses on the Waterfront. They built a swimming pool and we lost a swimming pool at Fort Regent. They built a cinema and we lost the Cine Centre. Any development should add to the existing amenities not replace.

We are not in a hurry to see the Waterfront completed. There are far more pressing concerns on the Jersey economy. Until the financial stability of Jersey has been secured and we are in a position to assess how much surplus revenue is available we should not be making plans for any further spending. We would prefer to see the site developed by the States of Jersey for the people of Jersey.

This is a response from the Centre Party:

Currently the Waterfront is causing enormous difficulty to many St Helier businesses. 11,000 meals a week are served on the Waterfront, meals which were previously served in other places throughout the island. Another 12 restaurants are planned which will further damage existing businesses.

Our prime concern is that there is no further duplication of existing businesses on the Waterfront. They built a swimming pool and we lost a swimming pool at Fort Regent. They built a cinema and we lost the Cine Centre. Any development should add to the existing amenities not replace.

We are not in a hurry to see the Waterfront completed. There are far more pressing concerns on the Jersey economy. Until the financial stability of Jersey has been secured and we are in a position to assess how much surplus revenue is available we should not be making plans for any further spending. We would prefer to see the site developed by the States of Jersey for the people of Jersey.

I would like to see that the Waterfront becomes a asset to the Island in terms of attracting people to the Island whether for business, or pleasure.

We have the opportunity to be quite bold in terms of the architecture and design of buildings we place on the waterfront and I think it is important that the area remains publically accessible rather than becoming a fenced-off residential area.

Although I have a personal opinion on the tall buildings proposed - I quite like the proposed design - the decision whether to build tall buildings at this location should be the result of an accurate assessment of the design, issues, and representations made by members of the public rather than simply based on an opinion poll and uninformed opposition and debate.

If the original ideas had been allowed to go ahead then we may have a ended up with a Waterfront to be proud of. Unfortunately the waterfront is just another States overspend in a long list of them. To date, the waterfront has cost the tax payer £40 million pounds which it may never see returned to the public purse.

Somewhere along the road of development everything changed on the waterfronts design. It changed from being low lying, to a high flying metropolis.

Our once beautiful St Aubins Bay with its view of the old harbour has now been replaced by a gargantuan monolith.

The building of a 10 screen cinema was totally unnecessary and out of character with the surrounding area, the buildings themselves are not in keeping with Jersey's unique architecture, they quite frankly resemble a kids lego set.

The building of it was an appalling piece of environmental vandalism unprecedented in Jersey's history. Not to mention the controversy over toxic ash being dumped in the landfill on which housing was then built, and the Les Pas land deal, the waterfront has done anything but live up to expectations.

Millions of pounds of tax payers money, and legal wrangles later, the waterfront is only 25% finished, how much tax money will be spent to finish this ill-conceived project? It is neither finished or even close to it. Sadly it is the tax payer paying for this, so who were the politicians responsible for this? The Waterfront was supposed to be a vibrant place that would be a valuable addition to our tourism industry. The building of an "Aqua Splash" pool was supposed to encourage tourist's to book holiday's based on the amenities available at the Waterfront.

The cost however to the tax payer was to be in the millions, £10.9 million to be exact. This was split between the original pool £8.4 million and the competition pool £2.5 million. This money came from the Tourism Investment Fund, and was part of a £25 million fund available to the Tourism Committee.

What is astounding is that the Fort Regent pool was closed so as not to give the new pool any financial competition. It closed 6 months after the waterfront pool opened. How on earth is this value for money to the tax payer? It is you the taxpayer who are footing the bill for this.

The cost to totally refurbish the pool at Fort Regent was put at £4.5 million. So why have we seen this vast amount of public money spent on the waterfront pool? We could have had 2 new pools for the same price, or the remainder of the money returned to the public purse to offset this years forecast deficit of £6 million.

On top of this, in the first 18 months of its operation the waterfront pool lost £249,000. This was much higher than expected and questions have been asked why the loss was so great.

WEB who were supposed to be the development agency of the States for the waterfront, have now handed the management of the pool back to the States. This will effectively put any future loss wholly on the public to pay. I find this to be a wholly unsatisfactory situation. The mistakes that have been made on the waterfront should be learned from, and should not be repeated as part of policy making in Jersey.

I wish to see the Waterfront developed but in real consultation with the public of Jersey not just a select group. Yes it should be developed but with the height of any development keeping to our present planning laws. Yes to develop it, but No to high rise on it.

If the St. Helier waterfront actually needs to be developed – which is by no means certain – what goes on it needs to be of an appropriate scale and of original design. Two-a-penny tower blocks of the kind found in many other places are not going to enhance Jersey.

Many St. Helier businesses call the waterfront the “Xerox” development, because much of it has been a carbon copy of existing businesses – from which it has taken custom. If it must be developed it should be as a cultural and artistic ‘quarter’.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that most of the supposed £350 million investment won’t actually have any significant economic multiplier effect within the island’s economy. Most of it will be lost through economic leakage.

I want to see the finished product as a world class development which will attract world wide attention and bring vistors to Jersey and provide further leisure facilities for Jersey people

I should like this to be a vibrant part of town, with high quality architecture and a wide range of amenities. If this is to happen before we are all too old, we have to let private businesses work in partnership with the States to deliver this.

This also allows the States, and hence the taxpayers of the Island, to deliver the required amenities at no cost, and in fact the current proposals allow for the taxpayer to gain (rather than spend) millions of pounds from the scheme, whilst retaining the freehold ownership of the site.