Wall sursis is about delay not diligence

States reports, civil engineering studies and parish records amount to a historical legacy of information which would overwhelm all but the most determined student.

It seems, however, that there can never be enough. Some critics are willing to keep asking questions until the right answer comes along.

At present expert opinion is clear. It will save money in the long run to take a section of the wall down now and, managed properly, it will not lead to coastal erosion or flooding.

In the process an ugly, ineffective, badly positioned lump of concrete will be replaced by a beautiful, sandy beach.

It seems, however, that this is not good enough. A public campaign has sought to undermine the credibility of the professional engineers in much the same way that the sea is eroding the base of the anti-tank wall.

A second (third? fourth? fifth?) opinion is called for and years of further investigation.

This involves looking – again – at how the wall was built and whether the beach can be replenished with sand and shingle while also examining the recreational, archaeological and historic use of the whole area.

But even that is not enough. The sursis wants E&I to talk to planners, get their permission (thereby involving another States office), do a full environmental impact assessment and measure how much sand and shingle is in the bay.

And at the end of that come back with new costed proposals a few months before the general election. Presumably then it can be turned into an issue for voters who, on the whole, will have read a fraction of the data.

This is more about delay than diligence. There is little reason to expect a different professional opinion and, by involving more States departments, the issue will only get more complicated – and more costly.

Ultimately, those who want the wall to stay seem to be satisfied with frustrating the process and waiting for a new political board.