The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
STATES OF JERSEY
ST. HELIER HARBOUR: CREATION OF CYCLE TRACK
Lodged au Greffe on 7th January 2013 by Deputy G.C.L. Baudains of St. Clement
STATES GREFFE
2013 Price code: A P.1
PROPOSITION
THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion
to request the Minister for Transport and Technical Services to abandon the plans (planning application reference P.2012/1499) to modify and extend existing sea walls to form shared pedestrian/cycle paths across parts of the English and French Harbours in St. Helier Harbour.
DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT
Page - 2
P.1/2013
REPORT
In my view it is unbelievable that Ministers could even be considering follies of this kind, given the number of problems facing Jersey at the present time.
Almost half a million pounds to create a cycle track (there is a perfectly good pavement on the other side of the road, so it's not for pedestrians) that essentially leads nowhere. Who would want to cycle to or from La Collette? And, assuming it is possible to find one's way amongst all the rubbish down there to arrive at the recently widened eastern access road, where does that get you?
A number of questions appear not to have been addressed. How many cyclists would use this expensive few yards of track? Is it even safe for cyclists to be riding around La Collette, given the heavy goods vehicles and health hazards down there? Would the user pays' principle apply and, if so, how?
What alternatives have been considered? Why can't the slipway be used as it is? (high tide does not always cover the slips and not for long when it does). Would emergency vehicles and large crane, etc. still be able to use the slips to access the harbour?
One could go on, but to my mind this is an extremely extravagant idea that fits into the nice to have' category as opposed to essential'. To spend upwards of £400,000 on such a project is not only wasteful, but in the current financial climate sends out entirely the wrong message.
Financial and manpower implications
There are no manpower implications and the proposed cost of £400,000 would not be incurred if the plans are abandoned.
Page - 3
P.1/2013