Questions Airport Accomodation

February 11, 2012 at 3:50 pm. States & Douzaine.


These are questions send to the Environment, Police, PSD and Airport about the Workers Accommodation Block La Villaize Forest.
So far only Environment has replied
Q. I comment first on an Airport Letter of February 3rd sent to Householders with continued reference to this site, as “a disused vinery site.” It is in fact a working vinery which exports to the O.K., unlike for example the one at Plaisance Road St.Peter.
Ans.The part of the Villiaze site being used for the workers’ accommodation is not being used for horticultural purposes and is accepted as presently redundant for such use.  The Plaisance Road site (Sandpiper Vinery) was addressed in the planning report.
Comment: It was not looked at properly and see below.
 This better sited (less traffic past schools etc.” disused vinery “was made available but this offer was not taken up.
The Open Planning Meeting at Beau Sejour of the 8/12/2011.
Q. These were the following main concerns by objectors present or not able to attend and will be as stated by the Environment Committee, “fully addressed by them”:
Although the issue of children walking and taking the bus from here, was overlooked and not considered In the Traffic Impact study.
The corner near the new entrance and exit has two very long fast straights and an unlit blind bend at the end and vehicles tend to misjudge their speed into it. (Only last week there was another accident with a small lorry overturning).
So it was suggested by Deputy Le Sauvage, a pavement be put inside the wall of the site to allow parishioners and especially the children, to safely walk to the two schools, Venture Inn, shops and The Mallard Cinema. They could also wait in safety on the pavement inside of the wall for the bus.
Ans. The suggestion that a pavement be provided was not adopted by the Board and was not a planning condition.  A condition was however imposed requiring that the potential to provide pedestrian access to the site across adjoining land in the same ownership to the north be explored by the applicant and if found to be feasible precise details of the access route and width and of any associated works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Environment Department prior to development being commenced. Any works to facilitate such access shall be removed and the land reinstated to its former condition within one month of the removal of the accommodation units from the site.  The reason for this condition was to facilitate pedestrian access to the site across adjoining land if feasible as an alternative to use of a section of Rue de la Villiaze which lacks pedestrian footways.
Q. Why was the view of the Environment for a pedistrian path for the safety of the children not done?
Ans.  The Airport Authority will be proposing a pathway across Mr Plumley’s land. For clarification, this will be for the workers to use (as suggested at the Open Planning Meeting) and will not be a pavement along t.he road
Q. I would have thought this pavement for the children would have been paramount requirement. I was very surprised and shocked the Traffic Committee did not insist on this.
Comment : This pavement should have been a paramount condition for the safety of the children. It should not have been allowed without it.

  • Q. It was mentioned by Deputy Sirrett, since the use of the accommodation cabins will begin with only 40 workers and build up to 146 over the 126 weeks duration. He then went on to recommend they should start first, with utilising the back of the site and then coming towards the roadsidelast.

Ans. This was addressed in a planning condition and agreed by the Airport Authority.

  • Q. Also suggested was the parking spaces could be in the middle and the canteen and rest areas are away from the road and housing to alleviate the noise for proximity Householders.

Ans. A requirement for relocation of parking was addressed as a planning condition and agreed by the Airport Authority.
Q. There will be a local firm will be in charge of security operations at the Compound and workers will have to sign in and out.
The Police Chief also confirmed with the strong vetting process and this site easy to patrol and look after, he does not see problems arising. It was also mentioned, any staff causing problems, their contracts would be terminated and they would have to immediately leave the Island.

  • It will be only a temporary site and it was stated, the “Essential Need” will not be used for this site and it will revert back to its original zoning
    Ans.  Correct
    Q. The Southside site:  The asphalt batching compound is there as a “temporary site” and the “Essential Need” as used for this project should not again be used here for Social Housing.
    As the Chief Planning Officer described, it is a gateway though and to overrule the RAP plan.I did not take that, as the right to bulldoze and do anything you want, on a green field or agricultural land. If we make an RAP Plan it is there for all to obey and States Dept must set a good example and not in my opinion abuse (as in this case) the existing RAP Plan. 
    Ans. Policy RD1 is part of the RAP. Use of this policy does not ‘overrule’ the Plan; it applies and was used as part of the Plan.
    Q. Are you saying the “Essential Need “will not be used on this site for Social housing? Yes or No
     Ans. Social Housing is subject to Policy RH2, not RD1. Policy RD1 could not be used to justify social housing.
    Q.  In an unrelated issue, the” Essential Need” could be better and more helpfully used for local firms in the cases of “Fred in the Shed.”
    Ans. Not relevant to this application.
    Q. On the traffic past the two schools, this is still ongoing with the Environment.  After an impromptu discussion with the Minister at a Douzaine meeting he attended and the latest letter sent afterwards and 12 years of prior correspondence.
    It still shows how, the PTA and the Douzaine solutions to this serious problem are different from the Environments.
    For the Chief of Police to monitor, that the lorries adhere to the restricted times and they are not allowed to drive past the Forest and la Rondin Schools, too in danger the children.
    Q. Will this be adhered too?
    Ans.This is not a planning requirement and I cannot comment on this. 
    David Gorvel
    La Roberge Farm,
    Rue De La Roberge,
    GY8 OJL


« Post before this: