Wall a matter of opinion

From confusion to cost.

The April 2020 meeting was one of the first virtual States sessions and deputies were still getting used to the technology. A vote on a requete to prevent the removal of 130 metres of the L’Ancresse anti-tank wall came out a tie at 18 votes apiece. By States rules that meant that original proposition would stand and the wall would go.

Except, just as the result was announced, it emerged that a technical issue had stopped Deputy John Gollop’s vote getting through. Another vote was held and the requete passed by a single ballot. The crumbling, badly-sited wall would stay, for at least 10 more years.

On such wafer-thin margins are issues decided in the States.

Comment: This sounds more like Guernsey Press sour grapes, as it has been against the wall remaining for the past three years. It continues to make inaccurate comments. The wall is sited in the same place as all sea walls around the coast. The wall is not crumbling, it does suffer from a lack of maintenance, and that is totally down to the committee responsible for it. The States decision was normal except for a slight electronic blip and many decisions are made on a majority of one. The one three years before had a two majority the other way with a number of States members missing. Is the Guernsey Press now questioning our democracy?

The cost to taxpayers of that decision is yet to be known. But it is clear that it is a lot more than deputies were told. Thanks to some confusion about how many panels would need work and the quantity of rock armouring, the requete’s maintenance budget of £200,000 is now considered woefully inadequate for the job.

Comment: It is accepted that to maintain this length of wall and place rock armour along its base will cost more than the £200,000 estimated in the requete, but nothing like the figures that were being put out by E&I just before the election. The original repairs and rock armour cost around £100,000 and covered 30 metres. The length in total was 130 metres so to multiply that for the remainder and allow a bit over would amount to around £500,000. Much of the extra work needed is because of a lack of maintenance over the years. Placing rock armour along the base will reduce the power of the sea tenfold and the common will be secure for many years to come.

E&I had already wasted over £80,000 on consultants, were about to spend possibly, in excess of £200,000 (their figures) on an environmental report.

When I asked for civil service costs for the three years, they were unable to supply them. The wall could have been repaired and finished three years ago at a reasonable cost. Their project was a vanity one from the start and would not have dealt with global warming and tidal rises.

It is another lesson in the perils of accepting last-minute amendments and requetes based on minimal research and armchair knowledge. Had the States had all the information from the start, instead of relying on the flawed four-page requete, it is likely at least one vote would have swung the other way.

Comment: The requete was needed and was accurate in that a 10-year moratorium was needed to assess the true requirements for the area and that a maintenance programme should be sorted out for that period. E&I got totally carried away with their figures and we have yet to see the report that went to the last P&R (I have put in a request for it to be made public.)

Instead, the island is left to pick up the bill. And for what? So that more tons of rock armour will line the beach top, making an ugly wall even uglier.

The last States was known for its flip-flopping. The anti-tank wall was one of the worst examples. This one will not want to change its mind again, especially as 10 members of this Assembly backed the voter-friendly requete. Five – all of whom are now committee presidents – were signatories.

Yet as the costs, the rock armour and the bills continue to pile up, islanders will be justified in asking how big a blank cheque the States signed thanks to a late recount. And when deputies will admit their mistake.

Comment : I didn’t hear the States mention a blank cheque, more Guernsey Press scaremongering? Yes, there will be rock armour along the base, much better than the two large rock armour groynes that would have extended down the beach at least 35 metres. We will then have a wall designed to meet the future, rock armour is versatile, we use it all around our coastline, it is easily moved and easily added to should we find that global warming produces larger tide heights in the future. We will not lose the kiosk and the toilets, we will retain the path, used by hundreds of people each weekend, we will retain a large chunk of common that would have been lost if the 130 metres of wall had been removed, we will have retained an important part of island history, the longest remaining piece of anti-tank wall forming part of Hitler’s Atlantic wall and it has served us well as a sea wall for 75 years.

GARY BLANCHFORD

gblanchford@cwgsy.net