Time for rethink on L’Ancresse wall

I might start by saying that I class Deputy Brehaut’s comments as scaremongering and that they bear no resemblance to reality but are attempts to twist the facts to gain public acceptance of this vanity project that E&I are determined to push ahead with at great public expense in monetary, environmental and historical terms.

Deputy Brehaut’s statements in your article:

‘E&I take the recent warnings from the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] seriously, hence our support for a soft sea defence at L’Ancresse.’

He’s obviously not taking it seriously as he is still trying to follow Royal Haskoning’s out-of-date report of 2012. Removing the wall, with possible rising tide levels, will quite probably cause the loss of around four-plus vergees of common over the next few years.

‘It’s well understood the current wall, which sits well ahead of the high tide mark, is leading to further erosion and sand level loss.’

Of course this wall sits ahead of the high water mark, so does every other sea wall on the island. All the bays suffer movements of sand between summer and winter. L’Ancresse tends to lose its sand at the top of the beach during the winter months but replenishes it during the summer months. The area where there is coastal erosion is around Fort Le Marchant headland and Les Fontenelles, which have no wall to protect them.

‘If the section of wall was to remain it would have to increase in height and width to deal with sea level rise, the costs would be astronomical.’

Nobody has been talking about expanding the wall in height and width. I’m not sure why he has suddenly thrown that into the equation. What is suggested is that the rock armour already placed against an area at the foot of the wall be extended along this length to protect the base of the wall. The area they have already done has proved to be an excellent protection to the base of the wall and the cost will be a fraction of what they propose doing when you take into consideration the loss of the kiosk and toilets, the loss of around four vergees of common, the unnecessary cost of the environmental impact report, the loss of part of a historic wall, the loss of the coastal path as we know it and the possible loss of the 15th fairway on the golf course, all because E&I want to experiment on our coastline.

‘Not forgetting the structure is in the wrong place to begin with — and of course it’s not a sea defence.’

We have already covered that this wall is in the same place as all the other coastal walls, just ahead of the high water (on the highest spring tide the sea comes up the wall about two metres, on neap tides it doesn’t touch the wall at all). Deputy Brehaut still denies that this wall is a sea defence. It was and still is an anti-tank wall, but at the end of the Occupation it also became a sea wall. Without it, even Greg Guthrie from Royal Haskonings admitted at one of the meetings that no one can be totally sure how much of the common will be eroded, so the wall has stopped that erosion for the past 70-plus years, so it must also be a sea wall.

‘The dynamic of soft sea defences is well understood and that process formed the bay long before the anti-tank wall was constructed.’

Yes, Deputy Brehaut, it formed the bay by erosion. The wall has stopped that erosion and we now have an excellent common with a coastal path along the edge and a popular kiosk and toilets. We have a golf fairway running parallel to the coastal path at a safe distance. Everyone enjoys the area, locals and visitors alike, the area is steeped in history and they would like to see the wall retained and maintained.

For some reason best known to you and your committee you want to go against the wishes of the Commons Council, the golf clubs, Festung Guernsey and certainly over 90% of the hundreds of people who turned up to the public meetings, the Vale Commons Council annual general meeting and the around 350 who demonstrated on L’Ancresse beach.

It’s time you had a rethink and please don’t blame it on a States decision.

You didn’t give them a reasonable alternative, they were presented with a fait accompli and then it only passed 17 to 15. Just another bad decision, but a very expensive one for taxpayers.

GARY BLANCHFORD

gblanchford@cwgsy.net