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.
1240/5(3940)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT BY DEPUTY G.C.L. BAUDAINS OF ST. CLEMENT
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY 17th JUNE 2008
Question
Would the Minister advise:
- who has ownership of the Waterfront Masterplan – Harcourt, the Waterfront Enterprise Board, himself, the appointed architect – or a combination of any of them?
Answer
The masterplan was commissioned, and is consequently owned by the Minister for Planning and Environment.
Question
- whether alternative plans for the Waterfront which did not involve a sunken road were pursued and if not, why not and if they were, why were they not presented to the States?
Answer
Alternative plans for the Waterfront, which did not involve a sunken road were developed prior to my appointment. These plans were inappropriate in scale and failed to address the problems posed by the separation of the Waterfront and St Helier. I could not support them.
On the recommendation of Mr Chris Shepley CBE, a renowned expert in town planning, I consulted some of the world's leading architects. Each independently stated that success for the Waterfront depended on creating connectivity through removing the barrier of the present multilane highway. Sir Michael Hopkins, my appointed adviser, proposed achieving the essential connectivity through lowering the road and building over.
The process of developing Masterplans rests with the Minister for Planning and Environment not the States. It would not be appropriate to bring a variety of alternative Masterplans to the States and ask Members to make a choice. On the contrary, the role of the Minister is to consult widely with the public and relevant stakeholders, including Scrutiny, and develop the most appropriate Masterplan, based on expert guidance and feedback.
It would be usual practice for the Minister for Planning and Environment to adopt a Masterplan without bringing the matter to the States. However I chose to bring the plan to the States requesting that the Assembly endorse my intention to adopt the Masterplan. I would not adopt or propose a Masterplan that did not create connectivity through removing the present barrier of the road, to do so would be failing in my commitment to deliver the best possible solution for the Island.