Select a region
Proposals to install railings along a section of the La Haule promenade which have been branded “a waste of time and money”, “ridiculous” and “not necessary” are to be considered again by the Planning Department.
Government officials are hoping it will be fourth time lucky as they take yet another stab at making the stretch of coastal walk safer, with the Infrastructure Department submitting a fresh application to create a 225-metre run of dark green post and rail railings between the German anti-tank wall and La Haule slip.
The first bid for safety measures along the promenade was rejected in 2020 on the grounds that the railings would restrict the uninterrupted views across the bay and conflict with the anti-tank wall.
An alternative involving a 300mm high wall was initially approved in 2022 but then thrown out, following complaints that the 'upstand', as it was described, would itself exacerbate the problem as a trip hazard.
Similar plans to install railings on the stretch of sea wall near La Haule slip were rejected in March because it would restrict views of St Aubin, and because the anti-tank wall is a listed historical monument.
The saga has cost taxpayers several thousands of pounds.
A request made under the Freedom of Law in June revealed that the Infrastructure Department had spent £7,270 on failed planning applications for the project – £5,280 on the March 2024 application and £1,990 on the 2020 bid.
Pictured: The Infrastructure Department has submitted a fresh application to install safety railings along a section of the La Haule promenade.
Documents submitted as part of the latest application said the railings would stand 1100mm high - the standard height for a safety barrier. The posts of the railings would be spaced 1500mm apart and fixed to the existing wall using 200mm anchor bolts.
Under the plans, the railings would be painted in a "recessive dark green colour" to help further "lessen their visual impact".
The department argues that the proposed railings would have a "maritime character" consistent with other areas of St Aubin's Bay and elsewhere in Jersey.
They suggest that such railings are not uncommon in areas with potentially dangerous drops to the beach. The document read: "Sea wall railings are present, for example, in the much less developed St Ouen's Bay."
Pictured: An artist's impression of the suggested "upstand", which did not go ahead. (IHE/Antony Gibb Ltd)
In its design statement, the department explained the plans were prompted by claims that a member of the public had a "near fatal accident" at the site in 2019 when they fell from the wall onto the beach.
In another attempt to justify the safety measures, the Department added that police reported that a cyclist had fallen off his bike onto the beach below in the early morning last year.
The latest application has generated similar criticism from members of the public to previously. All three public submissions received so far have been negative.
One submission said: "These railings are not needed. It will spoil the view of the bay and are a waste of public money, both in the installation and ongoing maintenance."
Another said: "Absolutely no need for railings along this area, not even from a safety point of view."
"Not only is it a significant waste of money, its impact on the vista across St Aubins will be profoundly negative," another added.
Some have aired their frustration on social media instead.
One parishioner spoke on Facebook having "déjà-vu" with the application, noting: "It's a tactic often used by property developers, to keep putting in applications until the public gets fed up with submitting objections and permission is finally granted."
He added: "There's far more risk of injury or death by stepping off the kerb into traffic, than stepping off the edge of the sea wall on to what is mostly soft sand on the beach."
Responding to the post, islanders described the project as a "waste of time and money", "ridiculous" and "not necessary"
One commenter said: "Our hard-earned cash must be burning a hole in their pockets."
Third time (un)lucky? Islanders 'rail' against new promenade safety plan
When is a wall, not a wall? When it's an "upstand"
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.