The Fort is used by thousands of people

Tuesday 23rd August 2011, 3:00PM BST.

From Madeline Bates.
WHY is it that people who obviously do not use the facilities at Fort Regent want to get rid of it?

We have an excellent sports and recreation complex, used by thousands of Islanders, yet every now and then, someone who has no interest in it, suggests we demolish it and build flats or some suchlike. Why not plough the money back into revitalising the Fort, thus turning it into a number one tourist attraction?

I’ll tell you why – because the States don’t want tourists here, they want rich residents instead. Better for the Finance Industry, you see. Removing the cable cars was a big ‘deliberate’ mistake. This made the Fort inaccessible for families with small children, whose only alternative was to trudge up Pier Road in order to reach it.

The swimming pool was probably the number one attraction, but of course that had to go, otherwise no-one would have used the newly built Aqua Splash pool at the Waterfront.

I disagree with your reader who suggests turning it into a university. They had the opportunity to do this with the old Girls College, instead of leaving it to rot. Given that we are an Island, a Maritime College could have been a possibility.

Thousands of local people use the Fort for various activities, so either plough some dosh into revitalising it or leave it alone. How about we build luxury flats on one of the many golf courses?

Oh, silly me – they are used by members of the States aren’t they? Enough said.

1
jj

August 23, 2011 at 3:55 pm

Enough said but well said. You hit the nail right on the head.

Report abuse
2
flog

August 23, 2011 at 3:58 pm

I’d like to see Madeline’s list of members of the States who play golf. I think it would be a very short list indeed. Perhaps Senator McLean, who I know plays golf, could give us an accurate count.

Report abuse
3
joker

August 23, 2011 at 4:57 pm

The cable cars were removed because they were antiques that required large investment to get them up to health and safety requirements not to mention they were hardly used.

Following your logic if people are too lazy to “trudge” up a small hill they would also be too lazy to use any of the excellent sports facilities.

Report abuse
4
Richard Pemberton

August 23, 2011 at 5:32 pm

Whilst no doubt well-intentioned Madeline, there is very little substance to your letter and quite a lot of rant!

“Why not plough the money back into revitalising the Fort, thus turning it into a number one tourist attraction?”

Plough what money back in exactly? The main problem with the Fort is how much it costs us tax payers to be maintained. It loses money and lots of it! It is an enormous piece of real estate that is hugely under-utilised. One of the many points I was trying to make with my recent letter was that you need to make the Fort pay for itself and then we can all benefit.

Like it or not, this island no longer has enough appeal for tourists at the price it costs them to holiday here and with dodgy weather at that.

We need to be more creative than talk about building a new pool/casino/ice rink/ski slopes/indoor surfing facility or any other suggestion that has been made for Fort Regent. The problem is that someone has to pay and tourists and locals are probably not sufficient, and the States have no money to fund it.

Let’s be clear that we all want better facilities for locals and tourists alike, and whatever is eventually decided for the Fort, there should be no reason why the leisure facilities as they are should not be maintained or even enhanced.

A self-funding Fort Regent might even find funds for bringing back our cable cars!

Report abuse
5
BeanThereDoneThat

August 24, 2011 at 8:47 am

Lovely letter, albeit some twenty years too late; our tourists are all but gone. There were numerous free consultancies done on the future of The Fort some years ago, which as usual our States did not take any heed of. Opting again to conduct their own surveys, which told then pretty much the same but our States did not listen. I recall one was to turn it into a Centre Parc style operation with year round usage of all areas.
So we the tax payer continue to front the White Elephant, and its sister Aquasplash which if anyone had listened was always going to cost taxpayers money. The best way to acquire a leisure pool is to buy it off the Liquidator, there are several shut down in the UK to choose from.
As for the future of the Fort well a fort is built generally to keep people out and looking at what our fort costs it is damned good at doing that.

Report abuse
6
joker

August 24, 2011 at 10:31 am

Beentheredonethat #5

Despite popular belief the Aquasplash is not a white elephant. It’s a fact that all public pools cost more money to run then they can reasonably charge to the general public.

The Fort pool and Les Quennevais pool were and are loss making too. In fact I’d guess that they cost considerably more to run than Aquasplash because it uses newer technology and doesn’t employ workers with the generous T&C States workers get. The difference between States pools and the Aquasplash is that the profit making Active gyms offset the cost of the pool. Aquasplash does not have this source of income. When it tried to get income for private parties to help toward the costs the Constable of St Helier vetoed it leaving the tax payer to subsidise instead.

So before people slag off the Aquasplash I think the States need to publish a cost comparison between it and States pools. I bet if you stripped out the income from the gyms you would find that Les Quennevais cost far more to the public purse and that the tax payer actually receives better value for money with Aquasplash.

Report abuse
7
Donna

August 24, 2011 at 3:39 pm

I remember going to the Roller Disco up there. Couldn’t skate. Just went to watch the DJ who was always so cheeky about the artists he played. Happy times.

Report abuse
8
Mona Lot

August 25, 2011 at 3:34 pm

4,000 people use the “Active” facilities each week,
can`t be bad!

Report abuse