THE Government has denied it has responsibility for maintaining the top of a seawall along the south coast even though it owns the land and has an obligation to keep the public safe.
Who owns the Island’s foreshore – the land between the high and low tide marks – has long been a bone of contention.
In 2015, when the foreshore was formally transferred from the Crown to the public, the government did seek compensation from Islanders whose property was deemed to have encroached on public land, such as steps down to the beach or a fence.
The issue was eventually settled in 2021 when a general policy was devised but there are still grey areas: such as who has responsibility to maintain the seawall in front of Grève d’Azette apartments Brise de Mer, which are not far from the Rice Bowl.
This week a meeting of the States of Jersey Complaints Board sought to resolve that, after the father of one of the owners of its six apartments, Perry Garrod, made a formal complaint.
This was in response to the Infrastructure Department telling him, after receiving legal advice, that while the public was responsible for the large blocks at the base of the granite seawall, it was not for the smaller block ‘parapet’ section at the top, which it deemed was an addition and therefore an encroachment.
Mr Garrod told the panel that he had wanted to repoint the top section after being concerned that it could fall down onto the beach below but had been advised to contact the government first because repairing the wall could be construed as having responsibility for its maintenance.
He was then told by Infrastructure that responsibility for the top section was the Brise de Mer owners even though the public is the owner of the land on which the wall is built.
Representing the government, Jersey Property Holdings head Tim Daniels maintained this position, although he conceded that he did not know who had built the top section and when it had been constructed.
The board, led by Geoffrey Crill, sought to find out whether this view was enshrined in a policy and how it fitted in with a 2016 contact between Brise de Mer and the government, which said that the latter retained the right to access the entire wall.
Why would the government retain this right if it didn’t own the whole wall, the board asked, to which Mr Daniels replied that it had duties under health and safety legislation.
Mr Garrod told the hearing that the wall was an integral section of the Island’s sea defences and the area would be prone to flooding if the parapet was not there – therefore the government had a duty to maintain it.
However, Mr Daniels argued that the parapet wall was considered an encroachment and the public was not responsible for its upkeep
The board – with Mr Crill being joined by members Susana Rowles and Jackie Videgrain – will publish their findings in four to six weeks, which require a ministerial response but are non-binding.
