From Graham Evans.
ONCE again we have one of the natives, as always, intent on destroying and disfiguring the coast of the Island; and all for a car, a mode of transport which will undoubtedly diminish in importance in the coming years.

Your correspondent, Ron Daley (JEP, 10 August), is either too infirm or has deteriorating sight. To describe the area adjacent to the North Quay of St Aubin’s harbour as a ‘stinking dump’ is ridiculous. Indeed, there is one cement-filled tyre and a few pieces of iron – obviously displaced moorings.

However, the only rubbish evident is the debris thrown over the wall by the customers of local eateries.
Instead, the area is one of sand, which in places is muddy and covered by a thin film of algae and supports a good infauna of worms and molluscs.

It is a rich feeding ground for fish, as can be seen by the feeding marks, and also birds. This, of course, is particularly true in the autumn when the geese can often be seen feeding there.

As to the disposal of material excavated from the ridiculous scheme of a tunnel and underground car park in St Helier, this should be dumped offshore, as long as it does not include any toxic waste, to form banks.
Elsewhere, such offshore banks, sometimes seen made of old tyres or discarded oil-rig metal, have quickly become covered with algae and then are rich fishing grounds.

Alternatively, it could be spread in the offshore zone, over a wide area, where it would be soon sorted and mixed with the local sediment by waves and currents. Ultimately, this will help to feed the beaches which will lose sand in the future due to rising sea-level and the higher waves which have been predicted.
The plan for reclamation, revived by your correspondent, was clearly rejected by the parishioners at a special meeting in St Aubin some years ago.

Also, again after a ridiculously contrived and rigged meeting arranged by the States, in spite of the organisers’ attempt to avoid the topic, the assembly again rejected the planned reclamation.
Although rather belatedly, the local political representatives rejected the plan. However, this might have been for other motives rather than concern over the aesthetics and the local environment.