A CONTROVERSIAL scheme to erect railings along a stretch of the sea wall at Le Haule could be pushed through by the government despite being rejected by Planning three times, the JEP can reveal today.
Infrastructure Minister Andy Jehan believes that the project may fall under the category of “permitted works” in Jersey’s planning legislation, meaning that the government can install the railings without the consent of Planning and despite significant public opposition.
Emails seen by the JEP between an agent acting for Mr Jehan and planners reveal that the minister “intends to carry out the works as permitted development as [sic] would consequently like to withdraw the application”, which is the fourth submitted for the site.
Mr Jehan confirmed that he was considering whether to push the railings project through in the absence of planning permission: “My understanding is that the works, if carried out, can be done under permitted works due to the safety issues.”
The JEP revealed earlier this year that the Infrastructure Department spent £7,270 on failed planning applications for the project – £5,280 on the March 2024 application and £1,990 on the 2020 bid. The department gained approval to build a 30cm wall along the promenade in 2022 at a cost of £90,000, but that was later rejected as it could be a trip hazard for walkers.
As well as being expensive, the scheme is resolutely unpopular, garnering dozens of submissions to the Planning Committee by members of the public over the last five years.
Among them, were comments that the railing were “not needed” and would spoil the view of the bay and are a waste of public money, both in the installation and ongoing maintenance,” one submission said.
“Absolutely no need for railings along this area, not even from a safety point of view,” read another.
“I think this is an outrageous way to proceed and demonstrates high-handedness,” said Alastair Layzell, one of the complainants.
In its latest submission to Planning, the department highlighted that a member of the public was knocked unconscious in a “near-fatal accident” at the site in 2019.
It also cited a police report about a cyclist who fell from the wall onto the beach below in 2023.
Asked about whether there was an ethical issue in forcing through an unpopular scheme after three rejections from planning, Mr Jehan said: “There are ethical issues on two sides as I see it. Whilst acknowledging the objections to previous schemes, we also have to be mindful of the risk element. If we choose not to do anything to mitigate the risk and a serious, potentially fatal accident occurred, we would have to be able to defend not doing anything to mitigate the known risk.”
He said that an initial risk assessment placed the risk of injury as “high” and that he had now ordered a second assessment.
“What we can’t do is stick our heads in the sand and ignore the current advice we’ve had,” the Constable said.
“A member of the public found someone unconscious on the beach with an incoming tide. Thankfully, the individual was found in time, [but] it could have been fatal.
“Safety measures have been introduced in many areas around the coast, the volume of commuters using the path has grown considerably over time and has to be considered.”
