Crumbling wall will be no asset

Instead of getting on with it after winning a tight vote in the States three years ago it dithered. Spotting an opportunity, fans of the crumbling concrete block had one last go at retaining its dubious charms.

Cue the farcical scenes yesterday when the requete was lost to a drawn vote, only to be resurrected when it was realised that Deputy Gollop’s technology had failed him.

So be it.

The difference is probably negligible.

E&I was showing little urgency in getting to work anyway and with the catch-all excuse of Covid-19 to hand it is doubtful the money would have been found to take down the wall either this decade or the next.

What will be interesting to see now is whether the dire predictions of ruinous maintenance costs come to pass.

Or will the wall just be left to rot, again citing the need for cost savings required post-virus?

If so, it will be clear that E&I overplayed its hand, inventing dangers of sudden collapse where there were none.

For there will be every incentive to do nothing. The committee (rightly) does not value the wall. Aside from safety, what purpose would there be in spending money propping it up?

The requete makes provision for that and calls for up to £200,000 being spent on rock armour and panel fixing – but if the committee can drag its heels so badly when a States directive meets its approval it is hard to imagine it leaping into action when it has lost the argument.

Whether E&I plays to the spirit of the requete or not, the result will be no oil painting.

Piles of rock armour strewn at the toe of the wall, rusting barriers at the top preventing people getting near dangerous parts at risk of subsidence, a rundown kiosk, ugly signs warning people not to walk along the top.

The whole mess is no asset to the beach, or the island’s tourist industry.