At the beginning it may have been quite easy to believe that a workshop in which so many divergent views would be represented would fail to find ‘common-ground’ and not worth the effort of even trying. Yet agree it did. "Reclamation? No thank you".
Given the strength of feeling, how come? Was it the plight of the Brent Goose, or the emotive appeals of the conservationists and environmentalists, or sheer resident nimbyism that swayed opinion and won the day, or was it something else?
There would be no denying that each stakeholder group plied their viewpoint with some passion, and each argument was powerful in its own right. No, that was only part of it. There must have been something far more fundamental at play. There was a sense from the outset that no-one really wanted St. Aubin to be physically changed at all, but just made better for everyone to enjoy whether they be a resident, trader or visitor! The sticky question was - how?
Now, any participant taking a quick look across the bay could hardly fail to notice that change does not necessarily mean better. As commented by one stakeholder: "Given the Waterfront, ‘change’ and ‘better’ are about as far apart as St. Aubin is from the Radisson Hotel - so on the evidence I would suggest it stay that way".

Only a money-grabbing developer, or a man with several million tons of spoil to dispose of, could possibly disagree.