‘If it’s affordable it would be good to keep L’Ancresse wall’

USERS and admirers of L’Ancresse have said they would prefer restoration over replacement when it comes to the future of the anti-tank wall, which also acts as a sea defence.

Brian and Pam Cheesman, from Surrey, have been visiting the island twice a year since the 1960s. He has concerns over the golf course and the future of the kiosk if the anti-tank wall which acts as a sea defence isn’t maintained. (Picture by Peter Frankland, 18223595)

The wall has been falling into increasing disrepair and its future has been uncertain for many years.

Now, many believe it is time to act rather than continue to manage the decline.

Brian and Pam Cheesman are from Surrey and have been visiting the island twice a year since the 1960s.

During that time, they said, they had come to love L’Ancresse.

The extent of the damage to the wall was obvious and something clearly had to be done, they said, adding that they thought there was a risk of the golf course flooding and the loss of the kiosk if action was not taken.

‘It would be nice to see the wall repaired and kept, though maybe something like a stack of granite blocks to replace it would look nice. Something clearly has to be done, though, or that kiosk could be at risk and the area will be spoiled,’ Mr Cheesman said.

Mr Cheesman said the idea of getting rid of the wall and letting a natural sandbank and dunes form did not appeal to him.

He questioned how that could be allowed to happen if it meant the end of the kiosk.

Comments for: "‘If it’s affordable it would be good to keep L’Ancresse wall’"

Just sayin'

Brilliant idea, let's ask visitors to the island how we should run things and how we should spend huge amounts of money that we don't have. Just so that they can still get their cup of tea when they come.

Roger Irrelevant

We do ask visitors, but normally Mr Cheesman or someone like him is wearing a suit and tie and is charging a massive fee for his expert advice.


We have plenty visitors in our government [UK newbies] who spend money we don`t have and use the local juniors to make them comfortable with a cup of tea.


We have 3 choices with this.

1. Leave it as it is and let nature take it's course and finally the sea will take it's toll and the kiosk will be lost.

2. Remove the entire wall as someone had previously suggested, but the cost of this would be very high and the sea would just eat into the common.

3. Repair the wall now, especially while available work is low locally we should be able to get a good price from the local firms who need the work..

Devil's Advocate

4) Fix the cause of the problem - sand/earth being washed out from underneath/behind the wall. This is nearly always the cause of the problems with our sea walls. It's been dealt with successfully at Cobo and Vazon groynes by forming a wall of piles in front of the sea wall and capping it with a nice ledge of concrete.

Option (1) is probably most sensible simply because the wall was built in front of the dune system which formed the natural beach head - allowing the wall to collapse will simply let the beach find its natural shape.

It's quite poor of the GP to describe the wall as being 'an anti-tank wall, which also acts as a sea defence' - it's not a sea defence at all, because the common didn't need defending from the sea.


Shell Beach is pretty, has sand dunes, has a functioning kiosk and doesn't have an anti-tank wall.

Is that a fair comparison?

Devil's Advocate

Yes. The sea wouldn't eat into the common either, the coastline had been the same for hundreds of years before the wall was built.

Y Burford

The future has not been 'uncertain for years'. A decision was made in 2014 to manage the decline of the portion of the anti-tank wall at L'Ancresse east with the longer term objective of it being replaced by sand dunes similar to those at Pembroke - essentially ultimately an attractive maintenance-free solution which also allows for areas of dry sand at high tide for people to enjoy.

Had we not been occupied in the 1940, no-one would ever have considered building a large concrete wall there. It is not a sea defence.

The kiosk can be moved slightly/rebuilt. Keeping an old kiosk is not an argument for spending a fortune repairing an unnecessary concrete installation.


Y Burford - yes I agree with you.


Bladdey 'Ell that's the second time in a month you've made a valid and concise point about saving the taxpayer money.

You'll be putting yourself up for re-election at this rate, and there's a wafer thin chance you might just swing it with the electorate with this kind of rhetoric.

Y Burford

3. Was only Deputy to vote against agreement with Condor that involved them buying the Liberation.

Island Wide Voting

Saving taxpayer's money I suppose depends on how much it would cost to perhaps armour the collapsing section with granite boulders as has been done at Ladies Bay, against the 4 / 5 / £600,000? it will cost to rebuild the kiosk and toilets and re-align the roadway

I take the point about our German friends having an alternative reason for building the wall.After all the two Martello Towers (also known as Pepperpots in some circles!) predate the wall by about 136 years ..... which funnily enough is about as long as it would take to fill Ronez Quarry with black bag waste


Blimey electioneering is starting early!

An AI Forever

Y Burford deserves a lot more respect than shes given

be careful what you wish for

the present crowd dont seem to much better

easy to slag people off on forums the likes of th mash etc etc