Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: Dredging our beaches?
There's an extensive report too in the Western Mail:
'Welsh beaches are being ruined by dredging' Martin Shipton,
Western Mail Jan 16 2007
WELSH beaches are being ruined by dredging that plunders more than a
million tonnes of sand every year from our coastline, say
environmentalists.
A postcard from the 1950s shows hordes of holidaymakers enjoying a
summer's day on the golden sands of Rest Bay, Porthcawl.
Today the same beach is barely recognisable, even taking into account
the seasonal difference. There is much less sand, the rocks are more
prominent, and visitors are increasingly likely to find themselves
walking through alluvial mud.
Increasing concern over the removal of sand from our beaches for use
in the construction industry has prompted a campaign group to call
for a moratorium on further dredging.
The Porthcawl Environment Trust, which has drawn particular attention
to what it sees as the destruction of Rest Bay, says the Welsh
Assembly Government should take urgent action to protect the
coastline.
For anyone who doubts the possibilty of severe flooding in Jaywick and the surrounding area take a look at the Friends of the Earth Marinet web site http://www.marinet.org.uk/index.html
Having previously read quite a lot on the DEFRA website, about the Shoreline Management Plan, not so much a plan more a 'who cares', and the 'making room for water' proposals. I've come to the conclusion that as far as central government goes, the so called managed retreat policy will continue. In that if for purely economic reasons Sea Defence funding cannot be justified, all be it that that evaluation is flawed, then it won't happen, so long as the treasury keeps raking in hundreds of millions of pounds each year from the Coastal Dredging industry.
On DEFRA's web site they seem far more interested in spending vast sums of money on Consultants analysing the Social Impact of Flooding than on actual research into better methods of protection.
On the Marinet site despite being part of an Eco friendly organisation, they put forward sound sustainable principles which should be applied to the proposed SMP. Their stance is supported by research from all over the Western world, which for once does not blame Global Warming for everything, but seem to be completely overlooked by those with the authority in the UK to actually do anything about it, meanwhile erosion projections are accepted from companies whose primary employer is the offshore dredging industry. As Max Miller would say, "Now theres a funny thing".
Take a look at http://www.marinet.org.uk/mad/beachrecharge.html about Beach recharging. I'm only a simple sole, but plain commonsense would seem to bear out what their saying
Pat Gowan of Marinet has started a petition on the 10 Downing Street website asking for signatures for a total stoppage of dredging activity.
The East Coast is badly in need of a moratorium on dredging so if you would like to help what can only be described as a good cause for all of us living locally please visit
It certainly makes you wonder just what they have done to our coastline with all the dredging that went on to make Martello Bay beach.Do you think there is a direct link with the dredging and the obvious change in our coast.Holland -on-sea used to have beautiful beaches and I have seen a dramatic change in beach levels around the Holland to Jaywick stretch in the past decade.
I know I am always banging on about a high beach protecting the coastline as it has for centuries but surely if they dredge huge great amounts of sand ect from a little way offshore then it stands tp reason that something has to fill the void ,and I have a sneaking suspicion that half of Hollands sand off the beach has done this.This could be a reason as to why the promanade has started to crumble here.
Holland had beaches and I know that the area around Martello Bay used to be mud/clay stuff ,but the beach there is now so high that it covers the Martello estate every time the wind blows in the wrong direction.
I dread to think what effect all this will have on the Naze,if this area is not protected and dredging goes ahead I feel sorry for all the areas that the Naze protects just by being there.
Thanks for the link Amenity ,gives food for thought.....
Lin said;
"Do you think there is a direct link with the dredging and the obvious change in our coast.Holland -on-sea used to have beautiful beaches and I have seen a dramatic change in beach levels around the Holland to Jaywick stretch in the past decade."
I cannot say for sure if there is a connection because I have not considered these lower beaches, however Pat Gowan would be likely to assist on the Marinet website. These peolpe really know their stuff.
It is thought most of out erosion problems, not just in the UK but world wide can lay their erosion down to dredging. Dredging began maybe as long ago as 1820 but of course on a much smaller scale then but changes to the topography were non the less real just look at the change to the headland at Harwich, so great was the removal of London cement that they had to buid a construction 800 yds or so(from memory) into the sea to speed up the waters coming from the Orwell and Stour.
The recent approval for Hanson's application for gravel extraction is worrying and might have implications for the Naze and the Walton Backwaters.
I seem to recall watching a very interesting documentary a while ago which did show a correlation between dredging and coastal erosion.
Water currents and tidal movement are bound to cause the shift of sands and gravels from higher areas into the lower areas of sea and river bed caused by dredging, that is basic science, just get a bowl with a couple of inch layer of sand in the bottom, fill it with water, make a few sunken areas in the sand, stir the water around and watch the movement and settlement.
Bye Bye to the lovely fossil rich cliffs then.....wonder if Ladbrokes would take a 50p bet on how long before the lot has gone.......
Do the idiots not realise that the cliffs there provide safety for the land lying behind them ,looks like Skippers Isle will disappear.
I wonder if Hanson will stick to the depth of dredge that they are licensed for?
At another place along the East Coast after they had finished derdging it is rumoured they went beyond their allotted depth by a considerable margin and that when this was investigated by the authorities it was pronounced a natural scouring that led to the deepening.
Just watch what happens when the proverbial hole on the beach is scoured when the sea returns, does it get deeper?
This may be a off the wall, but has anyone looked at the possible implications to the foundations of the new offshore wind farm if the present massive dredging continues?
Its a funny thing, old books.......
I now have one dated 1950 tittled the Essex Review
January, 1950.
No.233. Vol.LIX
In its chapters, from page 15 it has ten pages of the history of Jaywick, or
Clakngewyk as it was spelt in its earliest records from 1438....
(what, jaywick was once part of clacton....lol....)
Anyway, i digress,
It goes on to talk of, the construction of groynes to produce an artificial protecting beach and minimise scour is not an entirely modern measure, for on a map of 1808 are shown "horses" and breakwaters and it is noted that sand and gravel were "most improperly taken from this Beach," which contributed to the trouble, the materials being used in the repair of roads.
It also goes on to say that in 1803, as part of the defence works against Napoleon, Battery "W" was constructed at Eastness, now beneath the waves, but behind astrong sea wall not many years ago........
For just only ten pages, its really good reading, with the history of Jaywick from Neolithic times, even once a forest between Lion point and Eastness..But now under the waves..
One part of the old woods are still in evedence at Sackets Grove (Sachet, 1721)..............
We even have early mans Flake tools in the Britisn Museum no less...
Ivan what do you make of this is it just a coincidence, you know dredging starts off shore and now this warning, why not before?
Clacton Gazette
The council says £24 million is urgently needed to save the sea walls between Clacton and Holland-on-Sea.
advertisement
Harry Shearing, the council's technical services portfolio holder, said even if the weather is reasonable this winter there will be failings along the coastline.
A council report says it could eventually lead to the loss of roads and houses on stretches of unsupported sea wall, which could collapse.
"We have a detailed agenda that highlights the serious concerns the head of service and myself feel we are in," he said. "It isn't a measure we could take up, and for Tendring to borrow this money would be foolish.
Drafts of up to 21 meters will be needed by the largest ships, so increase significantly the dredge quantities for BBay than the early quotes above.
I forsee that perhaps Felixstowe will not be suitable after all for anything other than as part of a feeder system from Eurpoean ports. Flix has trouble with her tidal window at present 21 meters would imping on her usefulness dramatically.
Question from Pat Gowen (MARINET - Norwich):-
Joan Ruddock stated in the March 17th Eastern Daily Press Feature-3 article
"When it comes to coastal erosion we have got to take a hard-headed approach. It would be impossible to protect every inch of our coastline"
Why not?
Over the past 18 years the government has benefited by over £1.6 billion from the royalties and VAT provided from the 189 million tons of sand and shingle dredged from off the Great Yarmouth coastline alone. This is far more than enough to pay for the total protection of the entire UK coastline as well as providing compensation for those who have lost their properties and living because of the erosion resulting from this damaging commercial exploitive process.
Over thirty per cent of the aggregate dredged off our coast has been exported to Holland, where such dredging is banned due to the erosion and fishing losses brought about were it so permitted.
So - why not?
Reply:-
The minister failed to answer this question.
Abandon homes to the rising sea, warns Britain’s new environment chief
By Nigel Morris
Monday, 18 August 2008
Related Articles
The Norfolk village being swallowed by the sea
Print Email
Search
Go
Independent.co.uk Web
Bookmark & Share
Digg It
del.icio.us
Facebook
Stumbleupon
What are these?
Change font size: A A A
Stretches of Britain's coastline are doomed and plans will soon have to be drawn up to evacuate people from the most threatened areas, the new head of the Environment Agency warns today.
In his first interview since taking office, Lord Smith of Finsbury says Britain faces hard choices over which areas of our coast to defend and which to allow the sea to reclaim. He said detailed work was already far advanced on identifying areas of the east and south coasts which were most vulnerable to erosion, and called on ministers to give emergency help to families whose homes will be lost.
In a wide-ranging interview, Lord Smith, a former cabinet minister, also warns that the Government is not taking the environment seriously in a series of key projects. He says:
*Building a third runaway at Heathrow Airport would be a "mistake" because of pollution and aircraft noise;
*Plans for a new generation of coal-fired electric power stations should be abandoned until the Government is certain they will not pump out harmful gases;
*The proposed Severn barrage will destroy fish stocks and wreck bird habitats.
Lord Smith disclosed that the agency was drawing up projections of where sea erosion will do most damage over the next five, 25, 50 and 100 years. It is also factoring in the additional problem of the threat to low-lying areas from rising sea levels. "This is the most difficult issue we are going to face as an agency," he said. "We know the sea is eating away at the coast in quite a number of places, primarily – but not totally exclusively – on the east and south coasts. It's a particularly huge issue in East Anglia, but in quite a number of other areas as well."
Lord Smith, a former culture secretary, promised to do his "level best to try to defend communities where there are significant numbers of properties under threat and where it's possible to find engineering solutions".
But he said the agency, working with ministers, would have to identify "priority areas" and warned: "We are almost certainly not going to be able to defend absolutely every bit of coast – it would simply be an impossible task both in financial terms and engineering terms." Suggesting that parts of north-east Norfolk and Suffolk faced the most immediate danger, Lord Smith promised to work closely with the communities involved to achieve as much "consensus" as possible over which coastal stretches to protect.
He said: "We will publish next year details of the work that's been done, where we think the particular threats are, where we think there is current defence in place. We will begin to talk with communities where we think defence is not a viable option."
He also said ministers could no longer rely on insurance companies to cover families who lost their homes, suggesting they would have to be rehoused at taxpayers' expense. He said: "We need to start having a serious discussion with government about what options can be put in place."
Lord Smith put himself on a collision course with his former colleagues over a number of important infrastructure projects championed in Whitehall. He dismissed the Department of Transport's insistence that building a new runway at Heathrow could be environmentally sustainable.
"The increases in volume of air traffic and the consequent increases in congestion on the ground are, from the analysis that we've done, pretty unavoidable," he said. "I think the Government is making a mistake and I will carry on telling them that I think they are making a mistake."
He opposed building a new coal-fired power station at Kingsnorth in north Kent – with others to follow – because he is not satisfied the promised technology to "capture and store" carbon would have been developed in time for its planned opening in the next decade. "My view would be that we should not go ahead with the development of a new coal-fired generation unless those [clean coal] technologies are in place and we can clean up the emissions."
Although he supported using the river Severn's huge tidal power to generate electricity, he said he was alarmed at the Government's support for a fixed barrier. "Effectively you would be destroying the fish populations of everything up the river system from the barrier. That is a major environmental downside."
Over the last few days have noticed that a bulldozer is being used on Dovercourt beach (when the tide is out of course) and wondered if anyone knows why?
Roughly in that part of the beach near the council tip.
Amenity, are they going to pump sand ashore up there ?
the reason i ask, is when we had our fresh sand being pumped, we had constant movement of sand by bulldozer, the bigger the amount, the more heavy plant needed to level it all off.
Thinking about it, we have had buldozers before when the wind driven sand moved up and along the sae walls, it was levelled out time after time after time..
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
