Lack of vision is shown by your columnist
RICHARD DIGARD'S column of 29 June was, as he acknowledged, 'unashamedly personal' and why not, that is of course his prerogative. Without wishing to step on the treadmill of 'he said, we said' the Committee for the Environment & Infrastructure cannot sit idle while such inaccuracies are given prominence in the Guernsey Press, however personal the agenda might be. Also, if I was to rush to my laptop to respond to Mr Digard each time he was critical of the committee I would be a busy man indeed. Just ask any former Environment Department minister, the then Guernsey Press editor became something of a one-trick donkey, braying at all things environment related, even now as a casual columnist those old habits die hard.
But anyway, I need to correct some inaccuracies.
Firstly, the proposed scheme is not experimental, the managed realignment of beaches is not uncommon.
The committee has made it clear in all communications that the existing kiosk and toilets cannot, at this stage, be guaranteed.
That message has been repeated in multiple committee statements on the plans, so to state information has had to be 'dragged out' of us is just not true.
At the second presentation the engineers made it clear they were still working on solutions that may, just may, protect the kiosk.
We have committed to investigating the financial implications, in terms of additional cost to the project, of protecting the kiosk and toilets and if it would be financially viable to replace them. There is a balance to be found here – the kiosk at all costs would not be the best place to start.
I must stress E&I realise and respect the real amenity value of the kiosk and the need for toilets at the east of the bay and we will continue to work with colleagues on other committees to see what can be achieved.
I would also like to take the opportunity to point out what Mr Digard chose to omit from his column, like the fact he is on record as supporting the removal of the 200m stretch of anti-tank wall. For on Twitter, he said 'I think the case for removal has been made'.
It's a shame he did not take the time to expand on that fairly fundamental point in his article.
Perhaps the most telling aspect in Mr Digard's article was its acute focus on the now, not the future, his lack of vision rather than ours.
In short, young people get it, they understand the environmental issues we are having to deal with today (such as rising sea levels) are the legacy of a generation that came before.
A short-term fix to secure a much-loved island amenity is a worthy aim, but a permanent solution, a natural sea defence, over time ensuring the return of a gently sloping bay, should be something our generation may wish to leave as a gift to the next.
BARRY BREHAUT
President of the Committee for Environment & Infrastructure