A complaint against the government for not maintaining a section of the seawall in St Clement has been upheld by an official watchdog.
The complaint by Perry Garrod – who was representing owners of a beachside apartment block at Grève d’Azette – concerned a decision by Jersey Property Holdings not to maintain the top section of the seawall next to Brise de Mer, which is not far from the Rice Bowl.
Mr Garrod complained to the States of Jersey Complaints Board about JPH’s lack of response to his queries and its assertion that the department was only responsible for the lower part of the sea walls around the Island’s coastline, arguing that the maintenance of the parapet sections rested with property owners.
In upholding the complaint, the board concluded that the entire seawall, from top to bottom – including its foundations and backfill – was owned by the public, in accordance with established property law.
The landowner – the public represented by the States – therefore bore responsibility for the safety of the entire structure.
Panel chair Geoffrey Crill, who chaired a board hearing in July to hear both sides of the argument, said: “This was an interesting and clear-cut complaint for the board to address.
“It was clear that the complainant had approached the department in the correct manner and had rightly relied on a contract of transaction dated June 2016 between the Public of the Island of Jersey and the [housing] association.
“The department’s position would have been strengthened had it been transparent from the outset that its decision was driven by cost and resource considerations.”
The board made a number of recommendations, including that JPH inspect the seawall at the property and undertake any necessary repairs without further delay.
In response to the board’s decision, Mr Garrod told Express: “I’m just over the moon, really. However, I recognise that this is not the end of the story because the Complaints Board do not have the power to force the minister to do anything [they can only ask for the decision to be reconsidered].
“It is a bit of a damp squib in that sense; you would hope that they would have power to initiate some sort of change, but it is basically at the bequest of Jersey Property Holdings whether they will do something or not.
“It is a shame that it ever got to this stage because common sense should have prevailed much earlier on in the process. In Jersey, things would often get resolved after a quick conversation which didn’t always need a meeting to be scheduled. It is a shame that we have become more like London in this regard.
“My message to JPH is: ‘Stop wasting time and money on delay tactics and just get on and fix the thing!’”
