Campaigner calls for harbour redevelopment rethink

John Baker from Jersey Action Group has said plans to redevelop Elizabeth Harbour could mean the taxpayer suffers

A political activist has called for Ports of Jersey to rethink its plans to redevelop Elizabeth Harbour, while environmental campaigners have raised concerns that the work could release toxic chemicals into the sea.

In 2024, multimillion-pound plans to replace the passenger ferry terminal and reclaim more land to create a larger area for handling lifeline freight shipments were approved.

John Baker, from Jersey Action Group, said declining tourist numbers should give Ports reason to "have a rethink about the whole operation".

Ports of Jersey said the project was a "much-needed" investment in the island's critical infrastructure that would support local business and the broader economy.

'A money pit'

Mr Baker has acknowledged that the harbour's aging infrastructure needs an upgrade, but he doesn't see the value in a complete overhaul of facilities.

He said replacing the ferry terminal and moving lift-on, lift-off (lo-lo) freight operations from the New North Quay to Elizabeth Harbour would not be a sound long-term investment.

"It'll just be a money pit," he said.

Ports of Jersey said it would be fully-funding the project but has not provided a total estimated cost for the work.

It was previously given permission to borrow up to £150m, and has also awarded a two-and-a-half year contract worth £40m to a UK engineering firm to complete marine construction.

Mr Baker said he was concerned that the government would have to put money into the project and would also have to back Ports loans, which would ultimately mean the taxpayer would suffer.

He said: "I can't see the economic situation in Jersey improving, it's already desperate... something like this could be the last sort of thing that's really going to push things and turn us really into debt."

He added that the island's declining birth rate meant there was no real reason to expand freight facilities.

Andrew Le Quesne, from Earth Project Jersey, said toxic chemicals could be released into the seawater during marine construction work

Environmental campaigner Andrew Le Quesne, from Earth Project Jersey, said the marine development work should not start until Ports has completed comprehensive testing to find out what's in the silt below the harbour.

He said toxic chemicals, including PFAS and heavy metals, could be released during dredging work, which would risk polluting wildlife and the marine environment along the island's south-east coast.

He said he and other campaigners were not impressed with the environmental standards required for planning approval in Jersey.

He said: "The overall level of environmental protection is not being raised at the level and speed that it should be... we should be aspiring to have the highest standards and the highest quality of environment that we can possibly achieve."

Deputy Hilary Jeune said Ports of Jersey should be more vocal with the environmental work its doing on the harbour project

Chair of the environment scrutiny panel Deputy Hilary Jeune said it was "extremely important" that Ports of Jersey take environmental issues into consideration during the development.

She said it was exciting that the island was going to have a new harbour but Ports of Jersey must tell the public exactly what's going on throughout.

"I would like to see the Ports of Jersey be much more vocal about the kind of steps that they have taken," she said.

Chief harbourmaster William Sadler said Ports of Jersey takes its environmental responsibilities seriously.

It said it has worked hard to satisfy all planning conditions before construction work starts to make sure the marine environment is protected.

This has included testing harbour and marine areas for potential contaminants, detailed modelling of the construction and real-time monitoring to protect marine life.