Travaux-EN

PROPOSED WORKS PROJECT

All throughout last spring and fall, lots was heard about the proposed works project at Port Grimaud. We were asked to comment, we participated in many meetings.  And, all of sudden, big silence.  So, what’s happened? Here is an overview of latest developments, a rreview of the consultation process and what could emerge.

Looking Back

One could wonder whether this works project was designed in the best interest of Port Grimaud’s residents.  It all started with the fact that the port’s entrance is silting and that, to maintain navigability of the waterways, the entrance has to be dredged regularly.  Howver, City Hall’s proposal seems to go far beyond this necessity.

1) Project One : As such, City Hall proposes to resolve the silting issue with the demolition and  re-build of the South breakwater structure.  Last Spring, City Hall presented 3 breakwater scenarios, the result of costly studies, lead in secrecy without consulting PG residents, for an estimated 44  million euros, ex-cost overruns.  However, following the spring/fall consultation and discussions--

a. City Hall could not demonstate that any of the scenarios would resolve the issue.  In fact, it did admit toward the end that the scenarios were prelimary proposals and more studies would follow.

 b.  Many pointed to the possibility of alternatives to these costly and perhaps, inefficient, breakwater projects, and complained that nothing was presented along those lines.

  2) The rest of the works proposal has less to do with the needs and comfort of PG residents than with developing PG into a tourist attraction :

Prroject Two : To demolish the North breakwater and re-build it into a far higher and almost twice wider jetty. The purpose is to create a marina in the port entrance intended for large units  that cannot be accomodated inside the marina.  The official reason is to prevent water overflows during winter strong easterlies episodes.  This is not a credible reason since the breakwater was originally designed in exactly that manner – allow seawater overflows.  Proof is that there have been no problems in the 60 years it’s been there.   

   Project Three : To demolish and re-build a far larger Capitainerie. The widening of the jetty makes room for a larger structure that can accomodate the current 22 staff, but also staff to manage additional business and tourist activities. City Hall envisions a Capitainerie large enough to welcome a tourist office, a restaurant, a yacht club, offices and meeting rooms for City Hall personnel, a concierge service for visitingt yachts, perhaps also a ferry station. None of that is necessary to PG residents.  Let alone beneficial. Especially in view of the fact that, according to current staff/boat ratios in other marinas, a 5-8 staff population would be sufficient to manage the 500 public moorings in Port Grimaud, many of which are occupied by boat owners with annual contracts.

                     CONSULTATION  OF PORT GRIMAUD RESIDENTS

Consultation Process :
Last summer, City Hall organized a consultation process regarding the works program it plans for the renovation of PG’s waterways and its port infrastructure.  The consultation was mandatory since the project involved a building permit (Capitainerie).  Independent observers (“garants”) were appointed who attended the meetings and published an impartial report (21/11/24). https://www.portdegrimaud.fr/gallery/Bilan-concertation-prealable-Port-Grimaud-211124-V9_accepte.pdf. The report is an in-depth analysis of the hundred of letters expressing opinion and criticism as well as of sentiments expressed in the meetings. Those expressions led them to recommend that the consultation be continued or, at least, that another consultation be organized later.
In the course of this consultation, PG residents massively rejected the proposals–

·   A program far larger than what’s actually needed to modernize the port’s infrastructure

·   Lack of assurances that the proposal properly addresses the silting issue – failure to look into alternative solutions

·   Negative environmental impact

·   Damage to PG architectural authenticity

·   Opposition to an over-merchandising of the waterways

·   Costs of the program aand fear of costs overruns

City Hall, on thee contrary, considers that PG residents have approved the works program, including the breakwater and jetty scenarios and the enlargement of the Capitainerie. It rejects the “garants’” recommendations to consult further, finding that it has done enough. It has ordered further studies to prepare for the Enquête Publique (Public Enquiry).

https://www.portdegrimaud.fr/gallery/R%C3%A9ponses%20aux%20demandes%20de%20pr%C3%A9cisions%20et%20recommandations%20CNDP.pdf

The Public Enquiry (Enquête Publique):

A Public Enquiry will have to evaluate the proposed works program as to whether it is in the best interest of the public.  The Enquiry has yet to be scheduled and announced.  PG residents remain vigilant and plan to be active participants.

         COULD  THE WORKS PROGRAM BE VALIDATED AS A RESULT OF THE                                                               PUBLIC ENQUIRY?

In France, 95% of public enquiries end up validating public works projects.  But Port Grimaud could be the exception because City Hall may have a difficult time satisfying the “public interest” criteria.  Especially if the public in question is Port Grimaud residents.  City Hall must establish that the projects are beneficial relative to their overall costs and less costly and invasive alternatives.  Showing positive economic returns would be taken into account, but will be evaluated relative to all the negatives, such as nuisance to the residents and damage to the site’s architecture.   

1) PG residents are strongly opposed to those projects, the main objective of which is mostly to enhance the village’s  potential, something that impacts negatively on the residents’ rright to peace and quiet.

2) PG is a site labelled “Architecture Contemporaine Remarquable,“ and would be gravely diminished with an overly large Capitainerie building, elevated breakwaters,  enlargement of the jetty, and transformation of the port entrance into a marina for large yachts of 40m+;

3) The project, presented as protective of the environment, would, in fact negatively impact such environment.  The construction of new breakwaters and a larger jetty mean a new and larger footing on the sea floor and the destruction of a fragile environment.  

Conclusion : Port Grimaud is a private property whose founder contemplated merchant activities as services to the residents and not as a business center.  City Hall’s intentions go against the original and primary destination of this village.  Its program goes against the best interest and wishes of its residents,  who would have to endure an influx of tourists and its attendant increased pollution of all types, damage to the site, and inceased insecurity.  Not to mention the impression to inhabit a zoo.  Residents, therefore, will speak in favor of less costly and less invasive modernization initiatives that meet their needs and are more respectlful of the site and their way of living.