Council has concerns about L'Ancresse

1. As a matter of principle, the council is strongly resistant to any moves which see any part of the Vale commons reclaimed by the sea.

As you may know, your predecessor committee prevented the council from rock-armouring the eastern end of Fontenelle Bay when it had been offered granite from the site of the former Royal Hotel, gratis. In the event, the rock-armouring was prevented and the area which would have been protected no longer exists. That decision was foolish, but it does demonstrate what is likely to happen on the north-east coast of Guernsey if ingress by the sea is unrestricted.

The council regards your proposals as being in the way of an experiment. It would argue that, as such, it goes beyond your committee's remit and is properly a matter which should be decided by the States of Guernsey as a whole.

The council urges that the wall be repaired and protected by rock-armouring as outlined by you as an alternative and less costly scheme. The council cannot willingly accept the erosion of the commons.

2. The second point is that the council regards the provision of the present kiosk and toilets as being of fundamental importance to all users of the commons, be they visitors or islanders. The council therefore seeks an unequivocal guarantee that, in the event that the proposed works are undertaken, then equivalent facilities for both kiosk and toilets are provided in equivalent proximity to the beach and footpath. The council is very mindful of the need to cater for disabled and infirm people and removing these facilities would be seniority-detrimental and fly in the face of States policy to enhance facilities for those less fortunate.

As a general observation, your email shows that, in the last 11 years (during which period no annual maintenance was undertaken on three occasions), the average annual cost of works to the wall was less than £4,500. We are concerned that, in times of economic restraint by the States, it should be possible to avoid expenditure which may well exceed your estimate of £1m., both on grounds of the need to provide adequate toilet and refreshment facilities and the almost inevitable cost overruns which do occur.

We do not comment on the historical and heritage aspects of the preservation of German defences, as this is a matter for others, who are better informed than us, to address.

THE VALE COMMONS COUNCIL.

Editor's footnote: Deputy Barry Brehaut, president of the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure, responds: While I understand the council's concerns – also expressed by some members of the community – and will be meeting council members within the next two weeks, there appears to be some confusion over the potential options to 'save the wall'. The wall has no foundations; it sits atop the sand and previous efforts to protect the wall through additional toe development failed as they, too, are unfounded. The wall is failing due to sediment being washed out from underneath the wall, in effect causing it to fall forward.

Regrettably the Germans chose to build the wall in advance of the high water line and as a result, nature will always be looking to push it back. This means that the wall will continue to deteriorate.

Both our committee, and our predecessors in the then Environment Department, considered options that would delay its failure.

The cheaper option referred to by the Vale Commons Council would effectively amount to a patchwork repair job. It would indeed initially be cheaper than the planned realignment, at about £450,000, however such a short-term approach is neither sensible nor economically justifiable. As the wall has no foundations, ongoing ad hoc repairs will not avert a failure at some point in the future. The advice from the specialist engineers is that this option would have lasted a maximum of 25 years and significant additional investment would be required during that time to continue maintaining the wall. This is an unpredictable option, as there is no way of knowing how long each panel of the wall will last before further repairs are needed – and each panel could cost approximately £80,000 to repair, with the work to remove and restore the rock armour each time. These temporary repairs would not provide value for money and would simply be kicking the can down the road until the inevitable failure was definitively addressed.

We also considered the option of protecting the 200m wall with rock armour and whether that would be more economical than the proposed managed realignment. The rock armour would be a 50-year protection option, it would be at the same height as the wall and would take a significant width of the beach. This would mean the recreational value of the beach would be reduced, with less space and less drying time between tides.

While a rock armour would offer protection, it would not prevent the wall continuing to deteriorate behind it. At some point one or more of the concrete panels would need repair or possibly removal, which would mean dismantling the rock armour around the damaged section to determine the works required. This would be a costly exercise which may come without warning and also runs the risk of leaving the remaining structure vulnerable while repair was undertaken, and possibly during winter conditions.

The 2017 estimated cost of the rock armour was £1.8m., considerably more than the managed realignment estimates of just over £1m. The rock armour also carries an increasing risk of substantial additional and unpredictable costs as years went on. For these reasons it was again discounted as the preferred option for the long term.

I fully appreciate that the anti-tank wall has been ever-present throughout many islanders' lives, but this 200m section of the 900m wall is failing and the committee is trying to focus on the costs to taxpayers over the longer term, while seeking to minimise the danger to the public by avoiding an unplanned failure of the wall at some point in the future.

The preferred option also looks to improve the amenity value of the beach by offering a beach area with more drying time and no overshadowing.

The natural beach that will be created will build over time and will be backed with sand dunes with grasses, plants and chestnut paling giving protection – as at Port Soif, Grandes Rocques and Les Amarreurs.

These natural environments are the most cost-effective, with limited annual maintenance. The dune will prevent flooding from the sea – there were no reported issues with flooding prior to the anti-tank wall – and sand dune defences can be managed to address sea level rise associated with climate change.

In terms of the kiosk and toilet facilities, no decision has yet been made.

Of course it would be desirable to retain them, but it must be acknowledged that similar facilities exist about 500m away and it again is likely to come down to the financial viability of doing so. Protecting the kiosk and facilities is being investigated and costed separately so that any decision can be made fully informed of the financial implications.

I would encourage anyone interested in learning more about the background and facts surrounding these plans to visit www.gov.gg/lancresse.